|
Wednesday, 5
November 2008
(11.04 am)
PAULINE HAN LIN JEE (sworn)
Examination-in-chief by MR VIJAY
MR VIJAY:
May it please your Honour, the next witness is
Pauline
Han Lin Jee.
Q. You are
Pauline Han Lin Jee, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you
state your residential address, please?
A. 237
Arcadia Road, Unit 0504 The Arcadia, District
289844.
Q.
Occupation?
A. Director.
Q. Can I
refer you to your affidavit of
evidence-in-chief.
Have you
got that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you
confirm the contents to be true and correct?
A. Yes, sir.
MR VIJAY:
May it please your Honour.
Cross-examination by MR TAN
MR TAN: May
I call you Mrs Graham instead of Madam Han.
A. Mrs
Graham sounds good.
Q. Okay.
My name is Eugene Tan. I'm counsel for
Poole
Associates and I will be taking you through
cross-examination.
11:10 Ms
Graham, yesterday your husband described you as
a
prudent person; would you agree with his
assessment?
A. I beg
your pardon, what did you say?
Q. Your
husband described you as prudent person
yesterday
during
his evidence; would you agree with his
assessment?
A. I don't
know in what context he's saying, but I'm his
right-hand man.
Q. But
would you consider yourself prudent, careful?
A. Sorry, I
didn't get the sentence. Would I consider
myself
as ...?
Q. As a
careful person?
A. Yes, I
am.
Q. And this
prudence, it extends to money matters?
A. It does.
Q. I
understand from your evidence, Mrs Graham, that
you
came in
the project sometime in August 2006?
A. That's
correct.
Q. And that
was to assist your husband Mr William Graham --
A. That's
correct.
Q. -- in
running the project?
A. That's
correct.
Q. One of
the problems that you had was that you were
receiving many quotations from the 2nd
defendant,
Mason
Works; am I right?
11:11 A. That's
correct.
Q. And
these quotations were subsequent to the main
contract
that your husband signed with Mason Works, the
main
contract being the one for 474,000?
A. I don't
know the amount but I know that there was
a
contract.
Q. And
after that contract was signed, you continued
receiving many quotations from Mason
Works?
A. Yes, in
bits and pieces, yes.
Q. In bits
and pieces?
A. Yes.
Q. And
these quotations were for mechanical and
electrical
works?
A. I cannot
totally recall but I know there were a lot of
invoices
sent to me to endorse for payment.
Q.
Quotations?
A.
Invoices.
Q. I'm
talking about quotations right now.
A. Right.
Q. So
before invoices are issued and before works
actually
commence, you would be receiving quotations from
the
2nd
defendants; yes?
A. To be
very honest, quotations and invoices, to me at
that
particular time everything was a jumble to me.
I
see it
as piece of paper and where it is money
concerned
11:12 then I
would look into it.
Q. But
would you agree with me that, generally, before
Mason
Works began any works they would give you
a
quotation setting out what the price and the
scope of
works
were?
A. Yes.
Q. And only
after The Pump Room had accepted these
quotations would Mason Works begin the works?
A. Yes.
Q. As you
have said, you were getting these quotations in
dribs
and drabs?
A. Mmm.
Q. And
being a prudent person, you instituted a system
to
deal
with these quotations, didn't you?
A. I did.
Q. And the
purpose of this system was to ensure that cost
was
properly incurred; am I correct to say that?
A. Yes, for
as long as the invoice that I'm asked to pay
tallies
with the major contract, which means -- let me
clarify
-- if an invoice is given to me for ten items
costing
20,000 dollars, I need to know that this 20,000
dollars
and the ten items are actually already listed in
the
quotations in the first contract, so that
there's no
duplicate.
Q. Okay, I
just need to differentiate, or I need to make
11:14 clear
the difference between a quotation and an
invoice,
Mrs
Graham.
A. Okay.
Q. The
quotation could be for works that were not
covered
already
in the main contract, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. And the
purpose of this system that you had was to make
sure
that these quotations that The Pump Room was
going
to sign,
that the cost was being properly incurred,
meaning,
if I can just explain, that the works were not
already
duplicated in the earlier contract?
A. Correct.
Q. And the
other thing also that would be checked for was
that
cost was being monitored in these quotations; am
I
right to
say that?
A. This was
costs, yes.
Q. So you
would check the pricing in the quotations as
well?
A. Against
the quotation.
Q. Now, in
your system I understand that you gave these
quotations to Fred Wong and Shaharin to review
the
quotations before they were signed?
A. I did.
Q. And only
if Fred Wong had signed and endorsed on the
quotation would Shaharin or The Pump Room accept
these
11:15
quotations; am I correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Can I
just check with you, Mrs Graham, that before
signing
these quotations, did you instruct either
Shaharin
or Fred to check with Poole Associates?
A. No.
Q. So, in
other words, feedback and advice regarding the
quotations were never sought from Poole
Associates?
A. No,
because all the invoices come directly from
Mason
Works to me.
Q. Sorry,
you said invoices.
A.
Quotations, invoice, all come directly to us.
Q. Would I
therefore be correct to say that you never
relied
on Poole Associates to check the quotations and
the
invoices?
A. Correct.
MR TAN: I
have no further questions, your Honour.
Cross-examination by MR
ONG
MR ONG:
Good morning, Mrs Graham. My name is Ong Ying
Ping
and I am
counsel for Mason Works, the 2nd defendants in
this
action.
I
will just follow up Mr Tan's questions with
regard
to the
process of accepting quotations and paying for
the
invoices.
A. Okay.
11:17 Q. Can I
confirm with you, the sequence is like this: you
receive
Mason Works' quotation.
A. Yes.
Q. Then the
next step is you ask Fred or Shaharin to check
the
quotation, is that correct?
A. Against
the contract, yes.
Q. So they
check it, and then if they tell you it's all
right --
A. Then we
pay.
Q. You pay
only after the invoice?
A. Yes.
Q. So the
next step is that you accept the invoice, you
approve
the invoice -- I mean the quotation.
A. Yes.
Q. You
approve the quotation. And after that when the
works
are being carried out they send you an invoice;
would
that be correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Then
Fred and Shaharin check the invoice?
A. Correct.
Q. Then
they tell you if it's okay to pay?
A. That's
correct.
Q. Then you
pay?
A. That's
correct.
Q. So would
you consider that a review process?
11:18 A. No. I
consider that, from a business cost point of
view, I
have to make sure that whatever we are invoiced
for has
actually been already included in the contract
and not
something which is extra.
Q. Okay, I
understand. So would you call it a checking
process?
A. It is
internal checking process, yes.
Q. That's
good. Then I only have to take you through one
other
item. Could you turn to a slim bundle called
volume
2, 2nd defendant's bundle of documents, at page
425.
It's actually 425 to 426.
A. This
book has no 425.
Q. If you
look at the top right-hand corner --
A. Yes,
425.
Q. These
are emails from Fred Wong to William Lee. I
think
the
first in this chain of emails starts on the next
page at
page 426. You see the notation on top "Original
message
from Fred at CS Racing". Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. So the
date when the email was sent by Fred Wong was
Friday
January 26, 2007; right?
A. Correct.
Q. So the
email actually was issued by Fred asking to
arrange
a meeting with Mr William Lee together with the
directors. That would be yourself and Mr
Graham. Would
11:20 that be
correct?
A. At that
time, I was a director already, yes.
Q. So he
was asking for a meeting where the main agenda
will be
-- if you look at items number 1 and 2, page 426
of the
email, there are only two items to discuss at
the
meeting,
which will be number 1, handover and
commissioning of the project deliverables. Is
that
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And then
the next item, "Costing and payment"?
A. Correct.
Q. That's
what you did during the checking process we
discussed?
A. Yes.
Q. So
eventually the meeting was then fixed on -- if
you go
back to
425, the meeting was fixed on Saturday,
3
February 2007 at 10.00 am at the Pump Room;
right?
A. Yes.
Q. So I'm
just asking you to cast your mind back to that
day.
Around that time in January 2007 Mason Works
have
completed their works, haven't they?
A. Except
for brewery.
Q. No, the
brewery was also handed over, I think. It was
handed
to you by 21 December 2006?
A. Okay,
let me just explain. Even though I was a
director
11:21 at that
time, as you can see from my affidavit when
I first
started I did not get involved at all until
March,
August. So when I became involved there were
a lot of
meetings that I don't sit in. I don't sit in a
lot of
meetings. I have two other restaurants to run,
so I
don't sit in most of the meetings. So I cannot
recall
whether I sat in this meeting. I cannot recall;
I
honestly cannot recall.
Q.
Yesterday, he --
A. He
didn't say that, okay.
Q. He
didn't say that -- you and Mr Graham were --
A. Okay.
Q. So by
the time you were at that meeting, the project
was
completed, wasn't it?
A. Yeah,
okay. Yeah, we were up and running, yes.
Q. And Mr
Crispin's review of Mason Works' pricing was
supposed
to have started after the project completed,
wasn't
it?
A. Yes.
Q. And is
it true that you didn't ask Mr Crispin to attend
this
meeting?
A. I have
-- I am not involved in Crispin's appointment.
I have
never met Crispin at that particular time,
I don't
know who Crispin was; it was a name that I hear.
But can
I refer you to my affidavit? Is that possible?
11:23 Q. Sure.
A. In my
affidavit on page 10 --
Q. I don't
think there is a page 10 in your affidavit.
Paragraph 17.
A. There is
a 10 here -- exhibit 10, sorry.
Q. Okay.
The exhibit at page 10?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay, I
see it.
A. Do you
have that? If you see that in there, I was
promised
that there were costs that -- Mr Poole was
going to
help me to look into costs, but because I don't
see
them, they are all in bits and pieces, there was
no
way I
could follow the trends of the invoices. And
Mr Poole
had assured me on 7 November, "After the piling
is
started and William is bit more free, we can go
over
those
items and list them out". I don't recall there
was a
meeting because after that on 8 November, that's
when my
husband appointed an independent party to assess
the
cost.
Q. I guess
-- I understand what you are saying. So on my
part I
just want to confirm that on that meeting on
3
February?
A. January.
Q. 3
February.
A. Yes.
11:24 Q. No one
asked Mr Crispin to attend that meeting?
A. I cannot
remember whether I attended the meeting so
I cannot
answer that question, I am sorry.
MR ONG:
Okay.
I
have no further questions, your Honour.
COURT:
Thank you. Any re-examination?
Re-examination by MR
VIJAY
MR VIJAY:
May it please your Honour.
You
see, you said that you did not ask Shaharin or
Fred to
refer the quotations to Ed Poole; right?
A. Correct.
Q. Then at
the end of your evidence just now you said that
on 7
November 2006 you asked Ed Poole to assure or
look
whether
you were actually saving cost?
A. Right.
Q. Could
you clarify, first, why was it not referred to
Ed
Poole?
A. If you
look at my affidavit, exhibit 16, you will see
that --
sorry, I beg your pardon, exhibit 17.
Q. Which
page?
A. Exhibit
17.
Q. Refer to
it as page 17, please.
A. Sorry.
There was an email from William Lee to me, dated
9
October. It was a copy, just straight to me,
asking
for
money. "With reference to the above subject and
the
11:26 invoice
handed to you on our previous meeting, may
I know
when will the cheque be ready for collection?"
It
wasn't copied to Edward Poole. So by the same
token,
when I do my instruction to Shaharin and Fred,
I never
thought I should also copy Ed Poole. It was an
internal
admin thing that I was doing, and I had
responded very quickly to William's request. If
you see
that he
has written to me at 2.04 pm; I responded to him
very
quickly at 3.04, as soon as I had the invoice
and
as soon
as I had the email, I responded very quickly.
So I did
not think that I should copy Edward. I would
expect
him to be already copied by Mason Works.
Q. Can you
repeat the last part, please? I missed it.
What was
the last sentence?
A. I would
expect him to be already copied by Mason Works,
or be
aware.
Q. And why
is that so?
A. Because
the email from William to me chasing for payment
wasn't
copied to Edward Poole, so by the same token,
when I
do my admin work I do the same: I will straight
back to
whoever is being copied; I'll do the same
copying.
MR VIJAY: I
have no other questions.
COURT:
Thank you, you are discharged.
Who
is next?
11:27 (The witness withdrew)
MR VIJAY:
Your Honour, we have no other witnesses at
present,
unless Chris Shelley comes later.
COURT: All
right.
The
defence.
MR TAN:
Your Honour, would you require me to go through
our
opening
statement?
COURT: No,
assume it is read.
MR TAN:
Your Honour, the 1st defendants call the next
witness,
Mr Edward Poole. He is the first and only
witness,
actually.
EDWARD DAVID POOLE
(sworn)
Examination-in-chief by MR
TAN
MR TAN: Mr
Poole, can you look for your affidavit of
evidence-in-chief? It's the one titled "1st
defendant's
affidavit of evidence-in-chief, just to be
clear. Can
you just
look through its contents and confirm that it's
your
affidavit?
A. Yes, it
is.
Q. Is there
anything that you wish to amend in your
affidavit?
A. No.
MR TAN:
Your Honour, I have no further questions.
Cross-examination by MR
VIJAY
MR VIJAY:
Would you agree that around May/June/July and
11:29 perhaps
even August 2006 you were liaising with
Clark
Martin rather than Bill Graham?
A. The very
-- the first few -- well, yes, the earlier
months
were mostly with Clark Martin and later I was
introduced to Bill Graham.
Q. Would
you agree that Bill Graham was away with his
family
on holiday from 21 July to 21 August 2006?
A. No, I'm
not aware of that, that Bill Graham was away on
holiday.
Q. Yes.
A. No, I
had no idea.
Q. You were
in Langkawi, right, from 18th to 21st, correct?
I am
taking it from your passport.
A. I'm
sorry, but I travel a lot. Unless I have the
dates
in front
of me and maybe a copy of the listing there's
no way I
can remember where I was on what date.
Q. Could I
refer you to the 3rd defendant's bundle of
documents instead?
A. Okay.
Q. Your
copy of your passport is there.
A. Okay --
the listing is -- can you refer me to what page?
Q. I don't
know the page, but 18th to 21st in Langkawi.
A. It
doesn't have a listing of what days I was
travelling
where.
There is an extensive list of the travel dates
to
different countries. I would have to look at
the
11:31 dates
and understand where I was, what I was doing,
because
some of them involved attending to issues on
this
project and some of them did not.
Q. Yes.
Look through your passport. It's your passport.
A. Can you
refer me to the page?
Q. Look at
page 9.
A. Okay.
Q. 17, 19,
20, 25, 28. That's April, I'm sorry.
A. Can you
repeat the question?
Q. Correct?
A. Can you
repeat the question?
Q. I said
you were in Langkawi from 18th to 21st of July
2006?
A. Yes, I
was.
Q. Thank
you. And you were in Maldives from 27th to
31st?
A. Yes, on
page 10, yes.
Q. I am
told that Bill Graham and family were on leave
on
holiday
from 21 July to 22 August. I have the passports
here and
I can get you the travel documents if need be,
but are
you seriously challenging this? Then I will
bring in
--
A. I can't
verify whether or not Bill Graham was out of the
country. I have no idea.
Q. Fair
enough. I'm suggesting to you that Bill Graham
was
not
there in July in Singapore?
11:33 A. I don't
know.
Q. You
can't answer that; fair enough. We'll come
back.
You
see, now, can I refer you to your defence, which
is on
page 33 of the setting down bundle?
A. Page 33?
Q. Page 33
-- have you got that? That's your defence?
A. The
second bundle, this one?
Q. Sorry,
this one, setting down bundle, pleadings.
COURT: Why
don't you just tell him, instead of looking
through
all the papers, what is it that you want to ask
him?
A. I don't
know what you are asking him.
COURT: Do
you need to refer to it?
MR VIJAY:
Okay, your Honour.
COURT: You
are spending a lot of time looking for documents
and in
the end the question does not require that the
witness
examine the documents.
MR VIJAY:
It is a long paragraph. I will just read the
relevant
paragraph.
Now,
you say in your alternative that the
appointment -- your contract on 1st July 2006
was varied
by way
of an oral agreement and you say that this oral
agreement was around late July 2006 between you
and
William
Graham --
A. Wait.
Which ...?
11:35 Q. -- to
exclude project management. This is the
alternative defence, page 33.
A.
Paragraph 4?
Q. Yes.
Right?
A. Yes --
well, it was at around late July. I am not
exactly
sure of the exact date because there were many
meetings
going on, but there was an oral agreement that
Bill
Graham expected me to project manager the entire
job, and
I told him that's not --
Q. When you
said "late July" what date are you referring
to?
A. I don't
remember. There were many meetings going on.
Sometimes we met every other day.
Q. You said
late July. Could it be the last week of July?
Are you
referring to the last week of July?
A. Well, it
can't be the last days of July because I was
overseas. I don't remember what day it was. I
don't
remember
exactly what date.
Q. And it
was an oral agreement?
A. Yeah, I
remember there was a meeting in Peony Jade
sitting
around the private dining room table with all
the
parties involved, and Bill Graham wanted me to
do
project
management for the entire job, and I told him,
"No, I
am handing over two major hotels, coming up,
that
were
worth nearly 100 million dollars" and I was
going
11:37 to be
traveling a lot. I said, "My scope of services
never
includes project management of an entire job."
I have
never done project management for an entire
project. My project management involves my
scope of
works
only.
Q. You are
saying a lot of things which I'm hearing for the
first
time and it is not in your affidavit. Right.
All
these
things you are saying now is never in your
affidavit; am I right? Can you show me in the
affidavit
where
you have mentioned this?
A. No, I
did not mention that meeting.
Q. Yes, you
have never mentioned that prior to this moment;
correct?
A. Correct,
because my contract(?) does not include --
Q. Yes, and
you have also not mentioned all this in any of
your
emails; am I right?
A. Because
it was never in question that I wasn't project
manager.
Q. No,
answer my question, please. You never wrote any
email to
say, "I am no longer going to be a project
manager;
I never been one", et cetera?
A. This is
an oral agreement before the contract was
signed.
Q. Yes.
A. Before
the contract was signed.
11:38 Q. Mr
Poole, you said "end of July 2006". Your
contract
was
dated 1 July 2006. How can you be -- before you
contract?
A. (unclear
-- simultaneous speakers). Fair enough, yeah.
Q. Now, Mr
Poole, am I right to say that you never put in
a letter
or email to confirm what you just said; right?
A. No, I
did not.
Q. Yes.
Didn't you think it was important enough to be
put
in
writing?
A. It was
already in writing in my contract.
Q. It was
already in writing in your contract?
A. Yes,
that I don't do --
Q. Which
contract?
A. My
contract that Bill Graham signed, because it
states
that I
project manage only the interior scope of my
work.
It never says the whole project. Why would
I
project manager a brewery which I know nothing
about?
Q. Exactly,
but you signed a contract to say you will and
you
collected money for that; right?
A. No. I
signed -- he signed a contract and I signed
a
contract that stated I would project manage the
interior
architectural scope of the project. The title
of the
document is, "Proposal for interior
architectural
services". It does not say project management
of an
entire
job.
11:39 Q. Have you
finished?
A. Yes.
Q. Let me
go back to my question. The last question,
saying
that you never put in writing or in the email,
correct,
to that you said yes. Okay.
Now,
next question, didn't you think it was
important enough to put it in writing?
A. No,
because it was a discussion at a table with all
the
parties
involved. It was understood. It was
understood.
Q. Now you
are talking about a discussion at a meeting
where
this was decided?
A. Yes.
Q. In your
affidavit you say it was a meeting between you
and --
A. I said
(unclear -- simultaneous speakers).
Q. Which is
it, now?
A. I said
everybody involved in the project was there.
(unclear
-- simultaneous speakers) Peony Jade around the
dining
table. There were all the parties involved up
to
that
point. RSP most likely, I think, wasn't there.
Q. Mr
Graham --
A. There
was no need, if in the course of the entire
project
have I ever been referred to as project manager?
Q. We'll
come to that.
11:40 A. Never.
It's only (unclear -- simultaneous speakers) the
project
opened.
Q. Please
answer my question first. In your case and in
your
pleadings you say -- or you didn't say in the
affidavit; in your pleadings you say it was
a
conversation between you and Bill Graham. Now
you say
it was a
discussion at Peony Jade with so many people
present.
A. Yes.
Q. Which is
it?
A.
Everybody was present, but of course Bill Graham
is the
authority, so that was directed to him.
Q. Mr
Poole, this stated in page 33 of your pleadings
is
wrong;
right? If --
A. No, I
think it's correct.
Q. Why?
A. I can't
tell you the exact date in July, sometime around
the end
of July.
Q. Mr
Poole, your pleading specifically says between
you
and Bill
Graham. It never spoke about a discussion or
a
meeting with others present. Mr Poole, when are
lying?
Are you lying now or when you instructed your
lawyers
to put this in writing?
A. I
haven't lied.
Q. Mr
Poole, you have been in this business for 16
years;
11:41 am I
right?
A. No,
about 26 years.
Q. Now it's
26 years?
A. Yes, I
practiced architecture in Australia and USA
before
coming to Singapore.
Q. Okay.
I'm talking about Singapore alone.
A. Yes, 18
years.
Q. 16
years?
A. Now,
since then, 18 years, okay.
Q. And in
these 18 years, you sort of boasted in one of
your
emails that you had gone to court 32 times; is
that
correct?
A. I think
it was actually 36 times.
Q. Oops, I
am sorry. And you sued all your customers,
I
suppose.
A. They
were all in reference to small claims tribunal
and
normally
for actions to collect the last 10 per cent of
the
project, in probably 99 per cent of those cases.
Q. Thank
you. Having had 36 cases or may be 32 at that
point of
time in July 2006, didn't it occur to you that
it was
important to put that meeting in writing,
Mr
Poole?
A. How
would I know that -- that his wrong assumption
would
ever
come up to something of this nature, because it
was
never
brought up anywhere during the rest of the
course
11:42 of the
project? He never accused me of not acting or
as
being
negligent as a project manager until a letter
that
I got
from him, I believe in March of 2007, three
months
after
the project was opened. Then he states that I
was
negligent as a project manager. Well, where did
that
come
from? I was never the project manager from day
1.
Q. Mr
Poole, you would have put in writing, if there
was
really
such a meeting or discussion -- I don't which is
it now.
COURT: I
think you have extracted enough. Let's move on.
MR VIJAY:
Okay.
In
any event, you are saying that this was in July
2006,
end of July 2006?
A. Yes,
correct, correct.
Q. Okay,
and you also saying that -- are you saying that
you --
now I don't know what you're saying. So let me
first
clarify what you are saying. Let me refer you
to
Fred
Wong.
A. Okay.
Q. Is it
your case that Fred Wong took over as project
manager?
A. When he
came in at another subsequent meeting he was
introduced at the table, again with all the
parties
involved, in the same room, I don't remember
which day,
he was
introduced as "Project manager, Fred Wong".
11:44 Q. Can I
refer you back to your pleadings, paragraph 33?
Late
July 2006, oral agreement between plaintiffs
Graham
and 3rd
defendant to have Fred Wong project manage the
project?
A. Mm-hmm.
Q. Would
that be correct?
A. Yes,
that's correct.
Q. So it is
not a meeting or a discussion at a table and
all
that; right? I don't know about tables;
correct?
Which
one is it now? Is it a meeting where -- end
of July
2006?
A. After
the meeting happened where there was a -- where
I
expressly told Bill Graham I was not going to be
a
project manager for the entire scope; later,
at
another meeting, Fred Wong was brought in and
then
introduced as a project manager.
Q. It says
here categorically that in late July Fred Wong
was
appointed as project manager; correct? Can you
read
that
(unclear -- simultaneous speakers)?
A. Well,
It's not clear. That didn't happen until
August.
Q. Sorry?
A. That
didn't happen until August. Fred Wong was
appointed in August.
Q. I am
reading your alternative defence here. Look.
You
are
correcting your case?
11:45 A. I'm
filling in some more clarifying details.
Q. Okay, so
you know what I'm going to ask you next. It is
obvious
you are lying here. It is obviously a lie that
Fred
Wong was discussed, appointed, as project
manager
--
A. No, it
wasn't. He has a contract that says he was
project
manager.
Q. -- at
the end of July 2006. Correct?
A. He was
brought in -- well, we know from the evidence
that he
signed a contract in August.
Q. So you
are changing your evidence now to suit that?
A. No. No,
I am not.
Q. You said
here it was end of July 2006?
A. That's
referring to the first meeting that -- the
meeting
that preceded that, where there was -- I told
Bill
that I wouldn't do project management for the
entire
job.
Q. I will
come to that. Here -- so is it correct or not
correct
that end of July Fred Wong comes in as project
manager,
"yes" or "no"?
A. It could
have been at the meeting before the contract
was
signed, I don't know. It could have been.
Maybe he
was at
that time meeting. I can't recall. It could
have
been he was at the meeting and then maybe he was
actually
formally introduced later on after his contract
11:46 was
signed. I don't know. He could have been
introduced at the table before his contract was
signed.
I don't
know. I never saw his contract until --
Q. Fred
Wong was never in sight in July 2006 at all;
right?
A. I can't
guarantee -- I have no idea of that. I don't
know. I
don't know.
Q. You
don't know?
A. He could
have been in the client's office. I don't know
where he
was -- when he came on board.
Q. You
don't know when he came on board?
A. I don't
know the exact dates when he was contacted at
first; I
have no idea.
Q. But you
said that he took over -- you said here -- your
exact
words --
COURT: You
can't both be talking at the same time. The
court
recorder cannot cope.
MR TAN:
Your Honour, perhaps let me facilitate this
process.
MR VIJAY:
No, I don't think so, we have nothing here to
talk
about, Eugene.
MR TAN: No,
I am going to ask Mr Poole to wait for Mr Vijay
to
finish his question and then just answer his
question
and we
can move on.
MR VIJAY:
Okay, so can I refer you -- if I tell you Fred
Wong was
appointed on 21 August 2006; correct --
11:48 A. Yes.
Q. -- would
you accept that?
A. I
believe so, yes.
Q. So are
you saying that you were a project manager until
Fred was
appointed on 23 August? Is that the case?
A. No, I
was never --
Q. You were
never the project manager --
A. No. We
have to be clear: not of the entire project.
Q. Right.
A. Only
when I entered a contract with Bill Graham I
became
project
manager of the interior design scope.
Q. If you
look at Fred Wong's contract, which is on page
132 to
134 of your affidavit --
A. What
bundle?
Q. Your own
affidavit of evidence-in-chief.
A. My
affidavit -- no -- it's in my affidavit?
Q. You
didn't know it was there?
A. Yes.
Yes, sorry. Yes, okay.
Q. Looking
at this contract between C&P and the plaintiffs,
do you
agree that it is different from your contract
with The
Pump Room?
A. Yes, of
course it's different.
Q. It says
here, and I take you to page 134, he was paid
10,000
dollars; with GST, 10,500.
A. Okay.
11:50 Q. But
yours was of course negotiated down to 68,000.
Let
me go back to your appointment. Before I go to
your
contract, let's talk about what happened before
1 July.
Were you not on board sometime in the first
week of
May 2006?
A. No.
Q. Were you
not helping them on the project right from --
A. I was in
discussion with them but I was not on board.
"On
board", meaning entering into a contract?
That's
what I
would assume "on board" means.
Q. Right.
A. No, I
was not on board in May.
Q. Let me
go through all those things that you did. On
22 May
you handed over a plan to Clark; would that be
correct? You did a drawing. I refresh your
memory for
you.
A. Yes,
yes.
Q. On the
20th you flew off to Maldives and then you
arranged
for a plan of the whole project to be given to
them;
correct?
A. Mm-hmm.
Q. With two
alternatives; am I right?
A. Correct.
Q. That was
22 May 2006?
A. Correct.
11:51 Q. So
haven't you done substantial work by then, 22nd?
A. No.
Q. No?
A. No.
Q. You have
laid out the plan, you have laid out where the
things
should go --
A. No. We
were briefed that it was going to be kind of
like a
resurrection of China Jump. So of course we had
done
that project many years before for Clark Martin.
We had
the landlords's basic layout plan, which showed
the
outline. So that's entered into a computer in
a matter
of 15 minutes. Then we take all the existing
bar from
China Jump, furniture layouts and whatnot and
snap it
into the plan. It's not a lot of work. It was
a very
small amount of work.
Q. Okay,
but did you some work; right?
A. Yes,
because it helps people to understand when they
can
see the
actual scale of furniture within the room.
Q. And at
the end of May -- I can refer you to documents
if
you need
to -- 29 May 2006, you are already contacting
Steve
Carroll in Indonesia to order items --
A. Mm-hmm.
Q. -- for
The Pump Room.
A. Mm-hmm,
yes.
Q. Would
that be correct?
11:53 A. Yes,
correct.
Q. How is
it that you are ordering materials for The Pump
Room
when you say you are not on board?
A.
Contacting Steve Carroll had nothing to do with
placing
orders.
The issue is, when we talked about the design
style of
the project, which -- my company is usually
hired to
create unique imagery for the clients that we
work
for. The concept being a brewhouse, and the
type
of food
that they wanted to serve, we determined that
the
furniture should most likely be made out of
solid
timber.
You
can't just buy solid timber off the street at
any
given moment. As soon as there is an indication
on
a
project that there is going to be materials that
might
be hard
to get hold of or have a long lead-time, I make
phone
calls.
I
did this in the case before the contract was
even
signed,
to get the biggest lead-time we could get.
Q. So have
you or have you not ordered things by then?
A. No, of
course not. No orders were placed until they
were
approved --
Q. But you
informed her that you are now fully on to the
brewery?
A. I
informed who?
Q. You
informed Steve Carroll?
11:54 A. I said
it was a potential job coming up and I asked him
to call
his timber suppliers to find out what we could
get;
what kind of species of tree.
Teak
is very rare nowadays to get in large
quantities. It's very difficulty to get wood
out of
Indonesia or Malaysia or Burma. Sometimes they
actually
even
chop the trees down for our jobs.
Q. You
wrote to her to say that, "Hey, Poole Associates
is
fully on
the brewery job", correct? That's all.
A. Did I
say that? Where is it?
Q. Look at
page 182 of the pink -- there is a pink bundle
at your
extreme left. Look at volume 2, page 182.
That's
your email, right?
A. Yes,
okay.
Q. And you
said, "We are now fully on Highlander and the
Brewery"?
A. Again,
this needs clarification. "Fully on", again, is
referring to -- you have to understand what
happened
during
that time. On May 29 there was a devastating
earthquake that happened in southern Java. The
factories that we have used in the past were
completely
destroyed. We had other ongoing projects, for a
five-star hotel in the Maldives where some of
the
furniture was also destroyed and people were
killed.
So
it was a very trying time. We didn't know how
11:56 many
factories were still available, how many of the
workmen
died, or what. This was just giving him
reassurance that there's going to be something
coming
on. And
I am asking him, "Are you ready to go? Can you
workmen
do any further work?" That's all I am asking by
that.
Q. Yes, you
were asking and you were saying, "I will come
back".
You did say that but you also said that you are
"fully
on to the brewery work". That is what I am
interested in. Right. Forget about earthquake.
A. Fully on
sketching but not under contract.
Q. Yes.
What do you mean by your "fully on but under
contract"?
A. Fully
on, I mean, can be interpreted in many ways.
Q. What do
you mean?
A. I meant
that we were working on it, and I was giving him
warning. I do this on lot of projects; I warn
our
suppliers that there is a job maybe coming up.
And
sometimes in the Cape if there --
Q. Mr
Poole, I am not quarrelling with the fact that
you
are
telling them the job is coming, "I need this,
earthquake may be a problem". All that
considered, but
my
points is, you are writing to them to say that
"fully
on" on
this job, the brewery. That's all.
A. Okay.
11:57 Q. So you
were on the job, at least by the time you sent
this
email --
A. Mm-hmm.
Q. -- on 29
May 2006; correct?
A. Mm-hmm.
Q. Do you
agree?
A. Mm-hmm.
Q. Can I
move on, then?
Now,
in fact you went even further. You went to
make
suggestions, like -- suggestions like locating
the
tanks
for the brewery in a glass showcase outside. Am
I
right?
A. What are
you referring to in this regard?
Q. Did you
make all these suggestions before you signed the
written
contract on 1 July?
A. I
received sketches from Colin Simpson that showed
some
basic
layouts of a brewery, and then what my team is
we
take
those drawings, plot them into the floor plan
and
then see
how the rest of the space works out.
Q. Did you
make this suggestion before 1 July, i.e. 31 May?
A. Make
suggestions on what? Repeat, on what?
Q.
Suggesting about how the brewery should be?
A. No, not
at all. It was always data given to me by other
people.
Q. You
didn't make any --
11:58 A. It is
sketches given to me by other people.
Q. You
never made any suggestions that it should be
outside
in a
chill box?
A. No, no.
Q. Can I
refer you to page 185? Second last paragraph
from
the
bottom, please. Can I read to you -- first of
all,
this was
your email?
A. Mm-hmm.
Q. "I
propose that the tanks be located outside the
unit".
You are
talking about the brewery; right?
A. Yeah,
the tanks.
Q. "In a
chilled glass box".
A. Yeah,
correct.
Q. "It
would make a fantastic signage, but they said
alteration ..." Et cetera.
A. Okay,
that refers to --
Q. Doesn't
that --
A. If you
refer to the floor plan --
Q. --
contradict what you have just said?
A. No, it
doesn't, not at all, because what it was
indicating -- at that time we didn't know where
the bar
is going
to be, where the brewery is going to be, where
the
toilets are going to be, where the kitchen is
going
to be,
where anything's going to be.
So
we're given a layout plan for the brewery, and
11:59 one of
the things that we talked about is what if we
move the
brewery up against the window. So taking that
block of
drawing and moving it to the front, that is
what it
is referring to.
Q. Right.
Okay, agreed. So it was all suggestions from
you,
right, with regard to all this?
A. It had
nothing to do with the internal workings of the
brewery
--
MR VIJAY:
Your Honour, I hate to interrupt at this point
in
time but
I think we are going a bit too fast. So can I
propose
a break at this point in time so that the
transcribers can have a break?
COURT:
Okay.
(12.01 pm)
(Short break)
(12.12 pm)
COURT:
Witness, for the health of our court reporters,
can
you
please slow down?
A. Yes, I
apologise.
MR VIJAY: I
think both the witness and myself place on
record
our apologies to the transcribers, your Honour.
We will
take note.
COURT: Yes,
do not stress them.
MR VIJAY:
Is there anything else you want to say to the
last
question with regard to page 185 of volume 2
before
12:14 I move
on?
A. No, I
think I was clear on that.
Q. In fact,
you were so involved at this point of time that
you were
even concerned about time; am I right?
A. Of
course, yes.
Q. "Time"
meaning how fast this Pump Room project can be
completed.
A. Correct.
Q. You were
concerned; right?
A. Yes?
Q. And what
was the target date?
A. The
clients' expectation was October.
Q.
October. And you were helping them to achieve
that?
A. I was,
yes, can I explain -- until it became apparent
by
other
consultants that that date was not attainable.
Q. And you
were helping them -- sorry, did you finish?
And
you were helping them to reach this timeline as
far back
as 12 June 2006?
A. Yes.
Q. In fact,
on 14 June, you sent floor plans for
discussion, and materials?
A. Sent to
whom? Can you refer me to a page?
Q. I can
refer you, page 189, the same volume, volume 2,
the last
line, "... as the brewery plan is resolved with
the
structure". That's how you end the email;
right?
12:16 A. Yes,
that's correct.
Q. Okay.
Your date is 14 June 2006. It's written the
other
way, American style. 14 June; right?
A. Yes.
Q. And in
fact now you have also progressed to order items
for The
Pump Room in June 2006?
A. No.
Q. No?
COURT: Can
you specify what you mean by "items"?
MR VIJAY:
Yes, your Honour.
A. Can I
explain?
COURT: Let
him clarify first.
MR VIJAY:
Maybe I will ask you the question again. Prices
for
items started coming from Bali, correct?
A. Can you
refer me to a specific page?
Q. Page
192, please, volume 2 of the agreed bundle.
A. Okay,
yes.
Q. Right?
A. Correct.
Q. So would
you therefore agree that as far back as in May
and June
you were already working on The Pump Room
project?
A. Of
course I was working on it.
Q. Yes.
And 1 July, of course you had your written
contract. But assuming there was no written
contract,
12:18 would
you not have charged The Pump Room for all those
works
and things you did?
A. No,
because there was no --
Q. You are
doing it free?
A. There --
can I -- no, I would not have. Can I explain?
COURT: Yes.
A. There
are many instances where we get involved in
projects, where we start doing work and then for
some
reason
the job falls through, something does not work
out and
it's terminated, or something happens and we
don't
carry on. It happens often.
MR VIJAY:
Okay. You were doing the work and functions of
a
project manager during this time, i.e. before 1
July
2006.
A. No.
There was no contract at that time.
Q. Leaving
the written contract aside, were you actually
doing
the work of project management?
A. No.
Q. Didn't
Chris Shelley call you for a project review or
project
meeting around this time?
A. Again,
what date?
Q. Okay, I
apologise, I withdraw that question.
I
had my date wrong, sorry, your Honour.
Can
I move on to something else and can I refer you
to
volume 1 of the agreed bundle? This volume
consists
12:19 of all
your drawings; right?
A. Correct.
Q. All
these are your drawings; right?
Now,
from page 1 to page 8 are all your drawings,
and can
you confirm that these pages 1 to 8 were all
done
before 1 July 2006?
A. No, I
can't verify that, and I can't verify that these
are all
the drawings either.
Q. If I
refer you to the bottom of your drawing, you can
find the
date. If I start with page 1, on the left hand
column,
right at the bottom you can see 22 May 2006.
A. Correct.
Q. All
right. If you go on, 22 May, the next one, 22
May,
the
other one is 30 May --
COURT:
Never mind; what is your question? What is your
question? You have to speed up, you know.
MR VIJAY:
So you were doing so many drawings for them even
before
July; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay.
Now, and you also around this time, you also
drew
up some
terms; you started drafting contracts for the
contractor; am I right?
A. It's a
standard part of our drawing set called GN1 and
GN2.
It's a standard format that goes in the front of
any set
of drawings that comes out of my office.
12:21 Q. That can
be found at pages 36 and 37 of this volume 1,
right?
A. Yes,
correct.
Q. Can I
refer you to pages 36 and 37.
This
was drafted by you, correct? If I go on to my
next
question -- can you have a look at it?
A. Yes.
Q. Now,
here, you drafted this specifically for The Pump
Room?
A. No.
Q. Can you
look at page 36 on the extreme right-hand side?
A. Mm-hmm.
Q. It says
there "For The Pump Room, general notes"?
A. Correct.
Q. You
drafted altogether 37 clauses. The first eight
clauses
-- can I take you clause by clause -- the first
six
clauses, okay, it is in line with interior
design,
you are
asking for drawings, et cetera, and clause 8,
I will
leave that because it's neither here nor there,
can I
then run across to start off with clause 13.
Clause 13 says that site work shall be
restricted to
mainly
installation work, with all noisy and messy work
to be
done off site?
A. Correct.
Q. Mr
Poole, would you agree that this is part of
project
12:23
management and not interior design -- agree or
disagree?
A. No, this
is a general term for the contractor on a --
it's a
general specification to encompass any type of
project.
Q. Can I
refer you now to clause 14, it says that the
contractor must liaise closely with the client
and
landlord, main contractor for coordination of
works so
that no
delays are incurred; would you agree that this
is
project management and not interior decoration
or
interior
architecture -- "yes" or "no" will do.
A. You are
referring to paragraph 14?
Q. Clause
14, page 36, volume 1, agreed bundle.
A. Do I
believe that's project management? No, it's
a
statement of fact.
Q. Then can
I go on to clause 15, please. You have said
that the
contractor shall make the necessary
registrations on the forms provided -- the
landlord, at
least
five clear working days, et cetera -- paragraph
15,
would you agree is in the nature of project
management, rather than interior decoration?
A. No, this
is taken from -- this is a basic general
condition of almost every landlord in Singapore,
so it's
included
in this as part of general notes.
Q. Can I
now take you --
A. A
general note to the contractor.
12:24 Q. At
clause 16, you say here that the contractor
shall
apply
for contractor's pass and ensure that they wear
the
passes at all times -- project management,
right?
"Yes" or
"no", please?
A. Again,
it's a general --
Q. Just a
"yes" or "no" will do --
A. No.
Q. Clause
17, you're insisting that toilet should be at
a
suitable location -- project management, right?
A. No.
Q. Clause
18, you are saying that the contractors' access
to enter
the car park and deliver construction
materials -- again project management -- "yes"
or "no"?
A. No.
Q. Clause
19, contractors shall ensure that they store
goods
kept within the employer's premises -- project
management, right?
A. No.
Q. Clause
20, you say that to ensure that the workmen do
not use
the premises for temporary accommodation -- is
that
part of interior decoration? No, right?
A. No, it's
-- as I'm saying, it's a general note to the
contractor. It goes out to every contractor we
ever
deal
with on any project.
Q. Yes. It
is a general note relating to project
12:25
management and not interior decoration?
A. This has
to be read in conjunction, because it falls
under
the heading of interior architecture only, the
heading
-- our scope, it falls under our scope. It's
not
issued as an entire scope job or project, it's
under
my
interior scope.
Q. Clause
21, "Hacking or quarrying the floor structure
will not
be permitted..."?
A. Mm-hmm.
Q. Project
work, right? Project management?
COURT: He
has already answered that these are in the
context
of his limited scope. If you are going to go
through
every one, we will have a problem, because there
are so
many clauses.
MR VIJAY:
Yes, your Honour. That is the very thing I am
trying
to establish --
COURT: He
says that the whole lot --
MR VIJAY:
The whole lot, your Honour, maybe I can just --
COURT: Just
ask him one question. He has already told you
that
this is issued in the context of his specific --
(unclear
-- simultaneous speakers) -- and submit.
MR VIJAY: I
will, your Honour. I will round it up, your
Honour.
So
are all the clauses on page 37, except clauses
30, 31,
32, 33 and 34 -- they all relate to project
12:27
management, general notes or otherwise?
A. No,
again I'm saying it's in the context of my
interior
scope of
works, not the overall project. Like --
COURT: You
have answered, so shall we stop there?
Next
question.
MR VIJAY:
What do you mean by that?
A. I'm
assuming that he's using the words "project
management" in terms of the entire scope of the
job and
I'm
saying no, that's not the entire scope of the
job --
COURT: Yes,
I understand you fully --
A. But it's
under --
COURT: We
should stop here on this matter. You can
submit.
Let's
move on to the next subject.
MR VIJAY:
Okay. May I then move on to your agreement with
The Pump
Room which is on page 82 of your affidavit.
Your
Honour, I'm asking for some indulgence to go
through
this in detail, it's crucial to my case.
Page
82 onwards is your contract dated 1 July. Can
I
quickly move on to page 86. Before that, one
preliminary question; this was drafted by you,
right,
Mr
Poole?
A. Well,
technically, yes. It was actually with the
assistance of several lawyers.
Q. Okay.
So you had legal advice as well?
A. Of
course.
12:28 Q. Page 86,
it defines scope of services?
A. Mm-hmm.
Q. That's
just the first two lines. Scope of services is
defined
as surveying, planning, designing, detailing,
observing construction, installation and project
management -- and project management -- confirm?
A. Correct.
Q. And then
you have divided all the scope of services in
five
stages below?
A. Mm-hmm.
Q.
Programming and so on, stage 1 to stage 5,
right?
A. Correct.
Q. If I may
turn on to the next page, page 87, you have now
taken
these five stages of work and put in the amount
due for
each stage, categorically?
A. Yes.
Q. One
difference, for stage 2, instead of 20 per cent,
you
have
made it 10 per cent, right, and you put the
other
10 per
cent to be paid to you on commencement of work
--
nothing
turns on this, just for clarification?
A. Yes.
Q. Page 87,
in the second paragraph, fees are calculated on
the
estimation of the extent of work and the time
required
to complete the project -- correct? Okay?
Now,
if I move on to page 90, now we come to the
12:30 first
part of it, that's stage 1, programming, 6,800
dollars?
A. Mmm.
Q. Stage 1,
10 per cent, 6,800 dollars for this work,
right?
For
the 6,800 you're required to meet the clients'
project
manager to establish administrative procedures,
right?
A. Correct.
Q.
Schedules, budget guidelines and other
objectives for
the
project as a whole?
A. Correct.
Q. Now let
me pause here. Did you do any of this?
A. Yes.
Q. Which
one?
A. All of
them -- no, except meeting with the project
manager
because, at the time, the assumed project
manager
was the client.
Q. All
right. Did you establish administrative
procedures,
schedules, budget guidelines?
A. This is
referring to basically a general idea of how the
project
is going to carry forward. Schedules, of course
the
client gave an issue of a schedule, they wanted
to
open on
October 6.
Q. Okay,
the third --
12:31 A.
Guidelines were discussed, the clients had a
general
idea of
what they wanted under the general concept of
what The
Pump Room would be, so we discussed many things
on what
materials would be used to meet the budget.
Q. Mr
Poole, can you show me where the administrative
procedures are? Do you have the document? Do
you have
--
A. No,
there is no document --
Q. No
document, okay --
A. It's a
discussion about administrative procedures --
Q. Are
there any documents relating to budget
guidelines?
A. Budget
guidelines, no. This is programming, this is
a
general scope of what you do for the start of
the job.
If --
can I explain, your Honour?
COURT: Yes.
A. Okay,
some projects we work on where we have done
projects
where the client says, "I have no money at all,
I just
needed to get something open". Then we have
a lot of
clients that want five star hotels. Then we
have
some clients now that they want six star plus.
So
under that, budget guidelines and other
objectives, it's a general direction on where to
go
because
you don't want to redesign or have everybody
disappointed in the end, because it wastes time,
so it's
a
general direction to go from the start of the
job.
12:32 MR VIJAY:
Okay, can I -- third paragraph from the top.
You'll
evaluate and agree with the client the type of
contracts, tenders, procurement that would be
utilised?
A. Yes.
Q. Done or
not done?
A. Yes,
that was. Can I explain?
COURT: Yes.
A. Under my
FF+E, which is furniture, finishes and effects
it was
discussed that, in order to meet their budget
guideline, their budget and expectations, that
the best
way
forward would be to cut out all middlemen.
That
meant that we would set up a system where
I would
contact the factories, they would do the quotes,
they
would be sent to the client, the client would
approve
and send the deposits, and then the furniture
would
arrive on the site for the main contractor.
That
is a very, very clear type of procedure and
tendering process. It did not include ordering
from
existing
showrooms in Singapore, or from known
manufacturers of mass-produced furniture. It's
a very
specific
way to handle the job.
That
was discussed. That's what the discussion was
about,
for types of contracts, tenders and procurement.
MR VIJAY:
The most important party was Mason Works, right,
in the
whole project?
12:34 A. No, I
would -- no, he was not the main -- well, he was
the main
contractor, yes, but not the main party. There
were
many other consultants involved that played just
an
equal
role.
Q. Compared
to these people whom you buy things from, his
was the
bigger contract, right?
A. Of
course.
Q. Were
there any evaluation type of contract tenders
done,
for
Mason Works?
A. I was
asked by the client, again, under administrative
procedures, to review contract 2, which included
my
scope of
the works which was the FF+E portion, meaning
the
dining room and the toilets, of which I did.
Q. Do you
have any contract to show that you had done
these
things?
Do you have any documents to support what you
are
saying?
A. That I
--
Q. That you
prepared type of contracts, tenders -- (unclear
--
simultaneous speakers) --
A. Well, I
don't prepare the contracts on the purchasing of
the
items. It's all done by other people. Are you
referring to Mason Works' contract?
Q. Mason
Works and all -- everybody who --
A. Well,
there's evidence that he issued one contract and
then he
issued another one with the price changed, and
12:35 actually
the scope of his work within that contract also
changed.
Q. In the
next paragraph, you prepared a preliminary
project
schedule for the clients' review; was this done?
If it
was done, please show me where.
A. No, I
did not, because, again --
Q. No, Mr
Poole, you did not do -- (unclear --
simultaneous
speakers) --
A. No, I
did not do, it was done by Mason Works.
Q. It was
your duty to do it?
A. I'm not
the person building the walls. My job is to
advise
the client on how long it might take to build
a
project, but I am not the one that puts the
brick
walls
up, or does the tiling, so my advice to the
client
is the
day -- in fact the day after my contract was
signed,
or the day of the contract being signed,
I called
Mason Works and I asked them to do
a
preliminary schedule of the data that they had,
that
we had
thus far and his company issued a timeline,
which
also
indicated that the project couldn't be done
under
the
client's expectation.
Q. You were
supposed to do the contract, right -- "yes" or
"no"?
You were supposed to do the contract between the
plaintiff and Mason Works, correct?
A. No.
12:36 Q.
According to this clause?
A. No,
because it was decided between them that, you
know --
Q. I'm not
talking about -- (unclear -- simultaneous
speakers) --
A. Mason
Works was already on board, that was never
a
discussion because Mason Works was already
there.
Q. And who
brought them on board?
A. Clark
Martin.
Q. Not you?
A. No, not
me.
Q. We'll
come back to that.
A. No.
Q. There
was no -- look, next one, the second last
paragraph, you will review the site conditions,
conduct
a
detailed site survey, verify interior
architecture?
A. Yes, we
did that.
Q. That was
done?
A. Yes, we
did. Again can I quickly explain? We were
given
drawings by the landlord --
Q. Okay --
(unclear -- simultaneous speakers) --
A. -- and
they didn't match the site.
Q. Okay,
next one. "Poole Associates will analyse and
amalgamate planning requirements for the
schematic
design
presentation." Not done, right?
12:37 A. Yes, it
was done.
Q. Do you
have it in a document to show which page of your
affidavit, or whatever?
A. I
believe that would have been referring back to
that
set of
drawings, maybe a drawing that was issued on
5 May.
Q. You're
referring to the drawing?
A. Yeah.
Q. Okay.
Page 91, the first part -- I will take the
second
part
"Preliminary Planning design" -- I'm not asking,
you may
have done that?
A. Yes, we
did --
Q. The
second part, provision of building services,
limitations of existing elements, budgets and
conditions
of the
project brief -- not done, right? Budget and
conditions of the project brief -- was it done?
A. Yes.
Q. Can I
have a look at the budget and conditions of
project
that you have done?
A. No, the
-- it says we will prepared preliminary planning
and
design concepts, so what we were referring to
here
is a
drawing, not a document, not a Word document, we
were
referring to a drawing --
Q. Mr
Poole, I am not quarreling with you on the first
two
lines.
My question is based on --
12:39 A. But this
is in reference to the other -- this is in
reference to words that are at the bottom of the
paragraph. "We will prepare preliminary
planning and
design
concepts in consideration of the clients'
requirements."
That
means -- the clients' requirements were
a
microbrewery, a kitchen, some toilets, a bar,
dining
room.
That was amalgamated onto a floor plan and given
to them.
Q. You
would prepare preliminary planning and design
for
the
budget, conditions of the project brief?
A. Yes.
Q. What,
that is only drawing, nothing else?
A. That is
what that is referring to, preliminary planning
and
design concepts.
Q. Can I
take you down. There are two items, "Initial
schematic presentation will include ..." You
have
clarified, 1 and 2. Leave out 1; come to 2,
right?
A. Yes.
Q. You say,
"Preliminary estimation of probable cost ..."
A. Correct.
Q. "...
indicating estimations for all construction
items,
furniture, finishes and other consultants
required for
the
proper supply and fitout works."
Done
or not done?
12:40 A. Of
course it was in the process. There is no
definitive
"done".
A preliminary estimation of probable cost --
until
you have a full project, fully designed, you
can't
have
full --
COURT: Can
you slow down a bit?
A. You
can't have full costs count.
COURT:
(Unclear -- simultaneous speakers).
MR VIJAY: I
put it to you that was not done.
A. It was
done.
Q. Can you
show me if it was done, please?
A. It's
impossible to show you as a document. It is
many,
many
documents.
Q. It is
impossible to show because you have not done it,
Mr
Poole?
A. No, we
have done it.
Q. You have
done estimation for construction items?
A. Yes,
Eugene, can we refer to my cost matrix?
MR TAN:
Your Honour, may I assist the court?
MR VIJAY: I
have no problems with that your Honour. Can
I ask my
next question. Is it in the affidavit?
MR TAN:
It's in the affidavit, your Honour.
COURT: All
right.
A. Page 126
to 128, item number 2, preliminary estimation
of
probable cost, indicating estimations for all
construction items, furniture, finishes and
other --
12:41 (unclear
-- simultaneous speakers) --
COURT: Ah
--
A. --
required for the process, that appears in what
is
called
The Pump Room Clarke Quay preliminary cost
estimation revision 3 on pages 126, 127 and 128.
MR VIJAY:
When did you do this?
A. This is
an ongoing process. You see revision 3, it
would
have been updated on a daily basis, when costs
come in
from different suppliers and different
manufacturers, as the design process changes,
then this
cost
matrix can be updated, in some cases every
single
day --
Q. Can I
refer you page 125 please? Is that the date?
A. This
particular one was issued's on.
Q. 15
September?
A. 15
September. It was 15 September.
Q. And
where is the work relating to Mason Works, the
other
aspects? This is --
A. The
other aspects were issued under Mason Works'
contracts which was issued on September 8
--
September 8.
Q. Your
understanding of probable cost only refers to
the
purchases of items you are making, isn't it?
A. Yes,
because my contract includes -- it states it's
interior
architecture, FF+E, furniture, finishings and
12:42 effects,
to build the dining room and the toilets,
that's
all.
Q. Does it
say in the details of your scope of work that it
is
confined to interior design et cetera?
A. Yes, it
does, the first page of my contract. The
heading
on my contract.
COURT: Do
you have a --
A. Page 82,
"Interior design proposal".
COURT: Mr
Vijay, his whole case is that all these works
must be
read in the context --
MR VIJAY:
Of the small little heading -- I am coming to
that,
your Honour. What he's referring to is his logo
where
the standard words are always there, your
Honour.
If I
may, your Honour, he is now clutching at a
straw,
actually.
COURT:
Well, he can give his evidence and you can
submit
but
let's not revisit the same point. This trial
must
end by
Friday.
MR VIJAY:
Allow me just --
COURT: Yes,
I allow you to ask questions, but let's not
revisit
the same ground.
MR VIJAY:
Mr Poole, page 82, you see, whenever The Pump
Room
logo or sign comes, or rather, more
appropriately,
when the
Poole Associates sign comes up, there's always
this
word, "Interior Architecture + e.Design".
12:44 A. That's
correct.
Q. That is
your standard -- I notice that you have it
everywhere?
A. Because
that's my company logo.
Q. That's
part of your logo; right?
A. Correct.
Q. So where
does it say -- the contents of your contract is
on page
84. Mr Poole, 84 summarises the scope of
services, summary project et cetera.
A. No, that
is an index. This is an index.
Q. Yes,
that is the contents, index, right? And there
should
be no doubt because you have set them all out in
detail
on subsequent pages.
A. On page
85, it says "scope". Full scope, interior
architecture. That is my scope. Full scope,
interior
architecture.
Q. Your
Honour, I won't be long but I will just go to
the
main
one. If I may take you to page 92 of your
affidavit:
"Revised probable cost estimates indicating
estimation of all construction."
All
construction, right. Does it limit to what you
are
saying, interior design et cetera?
A. All
construction, again in reference to the interior
architectural scope.
12:46 Q. That's
what you are saying now -- is it anywhere --
A. Your
Honour, could I just make one statement?
COURT: Yes.
A. You
know, I do have in my affidavit at some point
that
this is
the first time in 500 contracts that anybody has
misinterpreted the point that my services are
for
interior
architecture. It has never happened before.
It is
very clear. The headings say the scope of work
is
interior
architecture.
MR VIJAY:
It could be the other way -- they have all been
misinterpreting. But I am not going to your 500
contract
--
COURT: Your
case is that he is the project manager, is it?
MR VIJAY:
Yes, your Honour, for the whole works as spelled
out in
his contract.
COURT: Can
all the lawyers look at page 90 and give me your
views on
this later?
MR VIJAY:
Yes, your Honour.
COURT:
Poole Associates will meet with the client's
project
manager.
MR VIJAY:
Ah. Your Honour, this --
COURT: This
is the same contract. If he is going to meet
with
your client's project manager, how does this
effect
the
contract? Can you all submit on this? We can't
be
picking
little pieces there; you have to look at the
12:47 contract
as a whole. So you should all think about this
and
submit.
Nobody has mentioned this at page 90.
MR VIJAY:
Your Honour, there is a reference to "project
manager"
there. Probably I can clarify that with him.
Your
Honour the whole content is -- I will leave
it --
COURT: You
all can submit, right, but I am just asking all
of you
to think about this. If you all say this is
a
contract to project manage and he is the project
manager,
I just want to know your submissions.
It
is the construction of a contract, all right.
Why is
it he is to meet the client's project manager,
if
he is
the project manager? And his case therefore is
"Yes, I
am the project manager to manage what is within
my
field, which is design and architectural
services".
Is that
right?
A. No, not
architectural services. Only interior design.
COURT: Yes,
interior design. That was the phrased used
by --
A. FF+E.
COURT: So
that's your case, right?
A. Yes,
correct.
COURT: So
you all submit on this.
MR VIJAY:
Can I just follow up with a few questions on
12:48 this?
COURT: All
right.
MR VIJAY:
So you are saying that you project manager only
the
interior design and things like that?
A. Yes,
because it is an incredibly complex procedure
and
you have
to meet deadlines.
Q. So when
you say project manager or "project manage", you
are
referring to yourself as project manager with
regard
to the
interior works?
A. Correct,
my scope of services.
Q. So who
-- so there were other project managers?
A. Well, at
the time the contract -- as Mr Fred Wong
mentioned, that when he was brought on board as
project
manager
-- he was introduced to me as project manager --
the
person handling that role was the collective
group
of
directors. I mean, in my case it was -- my
direct
contact
was mostly with Clark and then it was passed on
to
Bill. But then when Fred came on board he was
the
so-called project manager as far as I was
concerned.
Q. And who
was project managing the brewery side?
A. Well,
that fell under Fred's scope, because his
contract
-- well, I didn't see his contract until these
proceedings started. But, you know, he was
liaising
with the
structural engineer.
Q. So at
any one time, you are saying, there were more
than
12:49 one
project managers around?
A. No, not
necessarily.
Q. You were
for the interior; there was someone else for
the
exterior?
A. Oh, yes,
in that regard, yes, yes.
Q. Right.
But who was the overall project manager,
Mr
Poole?
A. Fred
Wong.
Q. But Fred
Wong only came in on 20th or 21st August 2006?
A. Yes.
Q. So who
was the overall before that?
A. The
clients. There's no need for a project manager
until
you have something to manage. At that time, we
were
only looking at concept sketches of drawings.
There
was nothing to manage.
MR VIJAY:
Your Honour, I can't possibly finish. May I
stop
here?
COURT: How
long more will you take with this witness?
MR VIJAY: I
have difficulty in estimating because -- very
long in
the answers. I will go faster. Definitely by
today,
your Honour.
COURT: You
can finish by today?
MR VIJAY:
Sure.
COURT: All
right. We will adjourn until 2.30.
(12.51 pm)
12:51 (The luncheon
adjournment)
(2.40 pm)
MR ONG: May
it please your Honour, I'm deeply sorry, we
were
caught in the rain and we came back a bit late.
COURT: I'm
glad you are all safe.
Before we adjourned for lunch, I asked you all
to
take a
look at page 90; right? Would you like to ask
any
questions on that or would you like to move on
to
your
next topic?
MR VIJAY:
Not on page 90, your Honour.
COURT:
Well, I just wanted to remind you of the
opportunity. Carry on, any way you like.
MR VIJAY:
Thank you, your Honour.
So
you are saying that your scope of works as
project
manager was limited to interior architecture;
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And
that's what I say your 1 July 2006 contract says
A. Correct.
Q. And is
it your case also that you continued with this
role
until the end of the project?
A. Yes.
Q. Then
please tell me, why were you talking about
variation of the contract at the end of July to
delete
project
management? Tell me.
14:38 A. Can you
refer me to a specific page?
Q. What is
it? There's no specific page here. My question
is: if
that is the case, why are you negotiating with
Bill
Graham to leave you completely out of project
management at the end of July 2006?
A. It
wasn't a negotiation; he was unclear as to the
reading
of my contract. It was -- he was misunderstood.
Q. We
covered this ground. You have categorically
stated
in your
pleadings -- I have shown you, where you stated
at the
end of July you were relieved of your total
project
management.
Mr
Poole, I can only put it to you that it is
obvious
from your silence that you were the project
manager. You are trying to wriggle out but it
is a bit
difficult, Mr Poole.
A. I'm
sorry, I was project manager for my scope of the
works.
Q. Can I
carry on?
Mr
Poole, Chris Shelley, was he involved with
interior
architecture or was he only concerned with the
brewery?
A. He was
only concerned with the brewery.
Q. And were
you project managing the brewery?
A. No.
Q. Not at
all?
14:40 A. No.
Q. Maybe
some overlap project management?
A. No.
Q. Not at
all?
A. No.
Q. You
don't co-ordinate? Nothing?
A. They
would send me the layout plan of the brewery and
then I
would plot it into our flow --
Q. Oh,
because you need the drawings.
A. Because
somebody needs to put it all together.
Q. Right.
Who was putting it all together?
A. My
company put it all together.
Q. Right.
A. But we
were not managing it.
Q. Why,
then, did Chris Shelley call you up for a
project
review?
A. Can you
refer me to that request?
Q. Has
Chris Shelley ever called you up for a project
review?
A. I
believe during the entire course of the project
he
contacted me only once.
Q. And what
was that for? For a project review?
A. I can't
remember exactly what, but if you can refer me
to the
page where.
Q. I have
not yet referred to you any pages; I am asking
14:41 you a
question. Were you at any time asked by Chris
Shelley
to attend a project review?
A. No.
Q. Can I
then now refer you -- give me a minute.
A. He
called a meeting. You mean, project review --
Q. I have
not asked any questions. I'm just looking for
the
page. Volume 1, agreed bundle 234, in the
middle.
234,
please.
A. Bundle 1
is the drawings.
Q. Did I
say volume 1? Sorry, volume 2, please.
A. 231?
Q. Page
234, please.
A. Okay.
Q. That's
your email in the middle. Is it 8 October or
10
August?
A. It's 8
October.
Q. Whatever
the date.
A. Okay,
yeah. He was simply calling a meeting. He was
calling
a meeting with everybody.
Q. Yes, you
included?
A. Yes.
Q. "Can we
do a full project review on Saturday?" If you
were not
involved in the project management of the
brewery,
why are you being asked to the meeting?
A. It's a
co-ordination meeting. It's important to be
14:43 there,
even when there's other aspects going on.
Q. Okay,
it's important for you to be there, that's
because
you are
the overall project manager; right?
A. No.
Q. No?
Then why is Chris Shelley saying this, "Hope we
can
all pull
schedule back on track"? That includes you.
A. Where do
you see that?
Q. The last
line of the same email.
A. I don't
see. I don't see that on this page.
Q. The last
line. Just above the words "Chris Shelley"?
A. Oh,
"Hope we can pull back schedule ... for
brewery".
Q. Can I
move on. If you have an answer I will wait.
A. Can you
repeat the question?
Q. I said,
if you were not involved, why is he asking all
to pull
-- all, "we can pull the schedule back on
track"
-- that includes you. Why are you being
included?
A. Because
I was involved in the project. Would you expect
him to
ask me to leave the room when he asked that
question? I mean, that's quite ridiculous.
It's a
project
co-ordination meeting that everybody on the job
was
there attending. It is a blanket request. It
is
a
blanket request to everyone.
Q. Yes. It
is not a minutes of meeting, it's just an
email.
Correct?
14:45 Next
one, can I now go back to your contract and
your
affidavit? That has cleared some of the air.
Let
me just
take you to what matters. Page 93 of your
affidavit, please. This is stage 4. Mr Poole,
you
allocate
the highest amount of money for this, i.e.
40 per
cent, 27,200. That's not in dispute.
Now,
what are you supposed to do for this money?
You're
supposed to "co-ordinate with the clients'
procedures and advise on the form of contract,
instructions, contractors, general conditions to
be
included
in the contract drawings", et cetera.
Let
me just pick up the next paragraph. I'll ask my
question
at the end of it to save time.
Next
one. You will "compile a list of qualified
recommended contractors and suppliers for the
clients'
review
and prequalification prior to letting the
construction and procurement contracts", and you
will
"prepare
drawings, detailed specifications", which you
have
done, but you have to do that to "form the basis
of
the
contract documents", right? So you have to do
drawings, details, so that the client can make a
proper
contact
with the contractors, annexing all these
drawings
et cetera, et cetera, your pricing, et cetera.
And for
that, you were supposed to be paid the largest
amount?
14:47 A. Correct.
Q. Now, Mr
Poole, tell me, did you draw up any contract
with
Mason Works, with all the necessary attachments?
A. No.
Q. No.
Thank you.
In
fact, Mr Poole, you never drew any contracts
with
anyone;
am I right?
A. That's
correct.
Q. Yes, all
you did was you were happily ordering things?
A. No.
Q. You were
ordering, you were checking on prices,
Indonesia, Malaysia, orderings things. Yes, you
did.
A. No. Can
I clarify?
Q. That was
your focus.
A. Can I
clarify? Poole Associates never, in the history
of this
company, has ever ordered materials for
a
client. We advise the client, we organise
getting the
quotations and then we send them to the client
and they
order
them, or the contractor orders them,
Poole
Associates never ever in 18 years of history has
ever
ordered any materials for a client. Otherwise,
we're
liable to pay it, to pay for that material.
Q. You
order --
A. No, we
don't order.
Q. Order --
14:48 A. We
organise the orders.
Q. Okay,
you liaise with the various suppliers and you
agree
the prices, the materials et cetera?
A. Correct.
Q. The
clients then pays, of course?
A. Yes,
once it's approved.
Q. And you
arrange for the delivery, right? Is that what
you are
trying to say? Is that fair?
A. Yes,
fair enough, yeah.
Q. That's
all you did, isn't it?
A. Mm-hmm.
Q. That's
all you did, isn't it?
A. What do
you mean, "That's all"?
Q. That's
all the work you did?
A. For this
stage 4?
Q. And when
you say all these big words?
A. For this
stage 4?
Q. When you
say all these big words like
interior
architecture and all that, basically this is
all you
did, isn't it?
A. This --
Q. Of
course, apart from your drawings and all that.
A. I'm
sorry, but the bulk of the payment is for stage
4,
because
that is a bundle of documents that's like
hundreds
of pages long. It describes everything in
14:49 order to
make The Pump Room into reality. It is an
extremely tedious amount of work. And that was
done
under --
Q. Mr
Poole, you are not answering my question. I
will
move
on. Can I refer you to page 32 of the
pleadings?
A. Of the
pleadings.
Q. That is
the setting down bundle. Maybe I'll just read
to you
to save time while you are looking for it:
"The
1st defendant's role", you say here, "insofar
as
project management was concerned, was only to
assist
the
plaintiff by liaising with various suppliers,
obtaining from them quotations for selected
materials
and
furniture for the interior design works."
Right?
A. Yes --
Q. And then
the following paragraph you say:
"Anyway, the entire project management was
subsequently excluded."
So
when you do work, that's your work. But in the
next
paragraph you say even that everything was
excluded. Page 32 and page 33. Please look at
it.
A. You want
me to read to where?
Q. I don't
want you to read --
A. Number
2?
Q. 2.
14:51 A. I don't
know. Is that wording wrong? "Defendant had
discharged its responsibility by sourcing and
..."
Q. Mr
Poole, can I go on to the next question, please?
A. Okay.
Q. Thank
you. If I may, page 94, I'll just refer you to
two
paragraphs only. Page 94, Stage 4, contracts
drawings
and administration. Page 94 of the contract:
"Upon completion of the contract documents ...
approval
by the client, you will obtain ... negotiate a
contract
for the fitting out works on the clients'
behalf."
Not
done, right?
A. No --
Q. Not in
dispute any more?
A. It was
done.
Q. I
thought we disagreed that you didn't do any
contract?
A. No, this
was --
Q. Fitting
out works --
A. No,
Mason Works submit a quote on September 8, so
that
was --
Q. So you
are riding on Mason Works' contract?
A. So
that's negotiate a contract with Mason Works.
Q. You are
taking credit for that? Tell me.
A. No, they
--
Q. Are you
now saying that the 8 September contract is your
14:52 doing?
A. No, it's
Mason Works' doing.
Q. So you
didn't do that, right? You are paid to do and
you
didn't do.
A. I think
you're reading this wrong.
Q. Okay,
I'm reading it wrong. Leave it. Let's go on to
the next
clause.
A. Okay.
Q. Upon
receipt of the quotations, Poole Associates will
evaluation the cost compliance with the
specification
schedule
eventually to meet other conditions of the
contract
-- not done, right? First of all, there were
no
quotations. Can I move on?
A. There
was a quotation, by Mason Works, for the FF+E
works
(unclear -- simultaneous speakers) my scope of
contract.
Q. Yes,
Mason Works gave quotations. You did not.
A. No,
Mason Works did, of course. It says "upon
receipt
of the
quotations". There were quotations from outside
sources. I don't do quotes on furniture because
I don't
make the
furniture. I organise.
Q. It says
here that Poole Associates -- that's you,
right --
will evaluate the cost. Have you evaluated the
costs?
A. We
looked at it with Mason Works. We reviewed it,
at
14:53 the
clients' request.
Q. All the
variations? Everything?
A. No, on
contract, on contract to -- that was
date
September 8, which involved the FF+E.
Q. All
those -- you're only talking about the first
contract, the variations?
A. No, the
first one was demolition. The second one was my
scope.
Q. So which
one? First one was demolition, 20 July 2006.
Were you
involved?
A. No.
Q. Next
one, 8 September 2006. Were you involved?
A. Yes.
Q. You were
asked to come in? Subsequent contracts?
A. No.
Q.
Variations?
A. No, I
was never cc'd on them.
Q. I lose
count of the variations.
A. I never
saw them.
Q. Anything
you are involved in?
A. No.
Q. And you
never even received them. That's your evidence,
right?
Right?
A. Correct.
Q. So, for
whatever reason, for whatever reason, you did
14:54 not do
the work, right? Whatever the reason -- leave
the
reasons aside; you did not do that work?
A. Correct.
Q. Let me
round up by going to page 95. It's the same
theme.
Basically, it's the first two or three
paragraphs.
"You
will verify contractors' claims of payment, and
issue to
the client a report to the accuracy of the
claims
and the suitability for payment."
I am
reading the second paragraph?
A. Mm-hmm.
Q. For
whatever reasons, you did not do that, right,
except
with
regard to 8 September --
A. Correct.
Q. -- 2006?
A. Correct.
Q. And the
third paragraph requires you to verify the total
compliance with the contract documents, et
cetera,
et
cetera. Do you want me to read the whole thing?
A. No.
Q. You
agree that that, for whatever reasons, was not
done?
Right?
A. No, that
was done.
Q. Which
was done? Which part of it was done?
A. Well,
the entire thing.
14:55 Q. The
entire thing?
A. Again,
this paragraph is only in reference to the
dining
room and
the toilets, so of course when the job is
finished
we go through and we walk through the project
and make
sure everything is correct for handover. So
any
anomalies --
Q. So you
were the project manager --
A. For my
scope.
Q. -- for
dining room and toilet only?
A. Yes, for
dining room and toilets.
Q. Anyway.
Now, the next one. Did you do as-built
drawings?
A. Yes, we
did, as far as we could, yes.
Q. Well,
you didn't give it to the clients?
A. Yes, we
did.
Q. Do you
have any forwarding letter or enclosing letter?
A. There is
an email saying that we delivered them by hand
on --
was it --
Q. Okay.
Nothing much turns on it. I am not going to
quarrel
with you about that.
A. We also
delivered them in CD-ROM format.
Q. No. You
see, your main contention is that Mason Works
was not
appointed by you, but Clark or someone else?
A. Correct.
Q. And
because of that, you cannot be held responsible
for
14:56 there
being no contract or no compliance or no
checking
of the
prices, et cetera, et cetera; correct: Is that
your
case? Because you never appointed Mason Works,
so
you say
it's not your problem.
A. No.
Q. No.
A. The
client can chose whoever they wants to be the
contractor, but the --
Q. But
let's go through this, because it was you who
brought
in Mason Works, right?
A. No.
Q. Right
from the start, you wanted them in --
A. No, the
documentation shows that Clark had already been
speaking
to Mason Works well before I was even
approached at all about any of this. Way
before. There
is an
email referring that a meeting took place in
Mason
Works' office months and months before.
Q. That was
to choose you. That, they say -- they discuss
about
choosing a good designer. And they all chose
you
as a
good designer. There was no talk about Mason
Works
working
for The Pump Room at that time?
A. Well,
don't you think that if Clark is having a
meeting
in Mason
Works's office about the project that it might
be that
it could be because he interested in using them?
Q. Not
necessarily; I don't know. You are speculating.
14:57 Let's
leave it.
Let
me just ask your connection. Just because he
talks to
them at the office, he must be selecting them.
A. He could
have had that meeting with -- he could have
interviewed ten contractors for all I know.
Q. You have
worked with Mason Works on many projects, am I
right,
about ten, maybe?
A. If you
define nine as many.
Q. Yes,
almost ten, my calculation almost came to 10 --
(unclear
-- simultaneous speakers) --
A. But out
of 500, I wouldn't call that many.
Q. All
these nine contracts were in the last maybe
three or
four
years -- recently, right?
A. No, I
think --
Q. Five
years, maybe?
A. At least
five or six.
Q. But in
the recent past, Mason Works has been more or
less
your -- you know, it has been the contractor in
almost
all --
A. No,
that's not true.
Q. --
matters were you project managing or designing?
A. No,
that's not true.
Q. Not
true. Even there's one ongoing or just ended
Bobby's
second --
A. You can
count -- let's see, off the top of my head in
14:59 the past
three years there would be 18 Soo Kee Jewellery
shops
done by Dorothy Lim of IWA Design.
Q. Okay. I
don't have to trouble you with the details, but
wherever
possible you do try to make an attempt to bring
Mason
Works in, right?
A. It
depends -- no, we don't. Whatever --
Q. You
don't?
A. We do
many different types of projects, so the thing
is
not all
contractors are appropriate for each type of
project,
so it's important to start off from the
beginning with a contractor that's able to do
the work
and the
type of work involved, so that not all
contractors can do --
Q. I agree,
but coincidentally, as you said, Mason Works
seems to
have scored nine, quite a good, remarkable
score.
A. But not
all nine of those are making -- in a case of
Highlander, Mason Works was selected by Clark,
directly.
I can't
remember --
Q. Are you
close to William?
A. Close?
In what way?
Q. Personal
relationship, you travel together, you meet
often?
A. Of
course we travel together because we do research
on
getting
materials for projects. He came and visited the
15:00 factory
where Highlander's bar was being made. That was
a
necessity.
Q. And Mr
Wan is also quite close to you?
A. In any
way a normal contractor is with my firm.
Q. You see,
the first time Mason Works came in was on
20 July
2006, right, to demolish the walls?
A. Yes.
Q. And the
other one was of course on 8 September 2006,
right?
A. Mm-hmm?
Q. But you
were already in The Pump Room project or works
from May
2006?
A. I was
looking at the job, but, as you said before, I
was
not on
board formally until 6 July.
Q. 1 July?
A. 6 July.
Q. Dated 1
July --
A. Okay,
yes. I want to point out also, you know, as
I
mentioned before, until a contract is signed
and/or
a cheque
is paid, I am not obligated to carry on with
anything, because I'm not under contract.
Q. You were
in the loop --
A. We had
started the process.
Q. You were
in the loop from May maybe 8, first week
of May
-- do you want me to show you emails to show
your
15:01
involvement? I can take you back again.
A.
Involvement, yes.
Q. Okay,
good. So, am I right to say here the moment you
put your
foot in the door on 8 May 2006, you were
already
thinking how to bring in Mason Works?
A. No.
Q. Of
course you will say no. And in May/June, you
were
still
trying --
A. No.
Q. -- to
bring them in through your own efforts?
A. No.
Q. And you
did this by keeping Mason Works in the loop.
You know
what I mean by "in the loop"? In the know
about
what was going on between you and The Pump Room.
A. Yes, I
was asked to keep them in the loop. When any
drawings
were done, I was asked to send them to
Mason
Works.
Q. Ah.
A. I also
sent drawings to another contractor, SKL
Interiors; it's referred to in one of my emails
--
(unclear
-- simultaneous speakers) --
Q. SKL
Interiors were after July, right?
A. No, it
was actually to tender on the entire project,
but
unfortunately --
Q. Nothing
happened, right?
15:03 A. He
couldn't complete the tender so it wasn't even
proposed
to the client. It was too full of holes, there
were too
many gaps in it.
Q. You were
sending emails, copying emails to Mason Works,
right
from May/June 2006, when Mason Works had no
business
with the contract?
A. No, I
never sent any -- (unclear -- simultaneous
speakers) -- to Mason Works until the client
requested
me to.
Of course I was sending emails to Mason Works --
Q. So your
answer is "the client requested" --
A. --
regarding The Highlander.
Q. I put to
you nobody asked you because nobody has decided
on Mason
Works way back in May or June 2006, it is your
evidence
that they were first called on board only on
20 July
2006 --
A. Can you
refer to a document that shows that I sent
specific
Pump Room information to Mason Works?
Q.
Certainly, I can show you more than one. Let's
start at
page
181?
A. Of?
Q. Volume 2
of the agreed bundle of documents -- okay, page
181,
this is your email, right, to Steve Carroll in
Indonesia? Have you got 181?
A. Yes.
Q. You are
sending an email to Steve Carroll, 29 May 2006?
15:05 A. Okay.
Q. Now,
that's your email, right?
A. Mm-hmm.
Q. The date
is 29 May 2006 -- May?
A. Okay.
Q. I
emphasise that. Now, look at the long list of
ccs.
At the
end, can you see Wan Yew Fai from Mason Works?
A. Yeah.
Q. Right,
and you were keeping him in the loop?
A. This --
Q. This is
nothing to do with him, isn't it, the
microbrewery and Highlander items --
A. I'm
sorry, but this email is referring to Bobby's,
it's
also
referring to the Highlander. Wan Yew Fai was
building
Bobby's at Chijmes at the time and that's what
it's
referring to. William at the time was working
on
Highlander.
Q. Can I
take you to the contents:
"Thank you for the update. Bobby's" --
A. Can I
also clarify here -- okay, this again was one
of --
this was the date of the earthquake.
Q. Yes, the
same --
A. Yes, so,
again, when we heard that our factories that we
work
with quite a lot in southern Java were levelled
to
the
ground, this was a frantic email notifying
everybody
15:06 that
there might be complications on their projects,
because
we had heard that certain areas of Java were
levelled.
That's what this is, it's a blanket email to as
many
people I
knew that I could think of off the top of my
head
that had projects involved there.
Q. Okay.
Can I move on? Don't worry, there are many more
emails.
Go
on to page 191. At page 191, this one is only
The Pump
Room, right? This is your email anyway --
first
confirm it's your email, dated 20 June 2006,
from
Ed
Poole?
A. Does it
say it's from me?
Q. Right?
Right?
A. No.
Where is my name on it?
Q. Page
191, that's your email, right?
Can
you see at the top there, Wan from Mason Works
has been
-- Wan from Mason Works has been copied -- can
you see
his name at line 6, the sixth line from the top,
can you
see Wan from Mason Works, yes, right?
A. Yeah.
Q. It was
copied to him --
A. Yeah.
Q. -- in
June 2006?
A. Yes,
because this email is also referring to
15:07 The
Highlander. It's referring to works that were
ongoing
with Mason Works in The Highlander.
Q. Your
subject says "The Pump Room, updated planning"?
A. Okay,
well, should I -- it's all here -- it says,
"Here
is the
latest plan for The Pump Room and Highlander",
the
first line.
Q. So now
you say it's because there is a -- and
Highlander?
A. It says
-- the first line.
Q. That's
the problem, isn't it?
A. And on
the bottom line.
Q. So can
we go on then to page 192?
A. Okay.
Q. This
one.
A. Okay.
Q. Is
Highlander involved here?
A. No.
This one is specifically --
Q. And no
one --
A. This is
specifically about The Pump Room, and I cc'd
Mason
Works, yes.
Q. Yes, so
what's your excuse? All your excuses are no
more
valid here; right?
A. Mmm.
Q. Mr
Poole, all your excuses -- you ran out of
excuses
now.
Let's go on to page 19?
15:08 A. I am
sorry if I can't remember dates from two years
ago.
Q. I am not
testing your memory. I'm very fair to you.
I'm
pointing that out to you.
Can
I now just quickly take to you 194? Same thing.
194, Mr
Poole.
A. Okay.
Q. 6 July
2006, your email --
A. Yes.
Q. -- about
table drawings?
A. Here are
the table drawings.
Q. Right,
The Pump Room, no one else involved?
A. No, this
is also -- this is also involving Highlander.
Q. Okay.
A. Munggur
wood was used in Highlander.
Q. Okay.
195?
A. Okay.
This one --
Q. Was done
before Highlander?
A. -- is
giving an idea to the contractor on the amount
of
wood
that we want for the top. It's a concept
drawing
going to
Steve to try to find the timber.
Q. This is
nothing to do with --
A. This is
the day before the contract was signed.
Q. You're
talking about your contract was signed?
A. Yeah, my
contract, yes.
Q. Not
Mason Works?
15:10 A. No.
Q. But you
copied --
A. No, but
they were told -- I can't remember the date that
Clark
asked me to send the drawings to Mason Works.
Q. No,
that's what you are saying. Never here have
you
mentioned that you are forwarding these at the
request
of Mr Tack or whoever. Have you said anywhere?
A. No,
because emails are written quite informally.
There
are
hundreds of emails written in a day. You don't
explain
everything.
Q. You see,
only on 20 July were they involved in The Pump
Room
project. So we know that the formal contract
was
even
later, 8 September, and these are, what, June
July?
Maybe I
will just pick one to round it up. Page 200,
please.
A. Okay.
Q. This is
from you to Wan Yew Fai?
A. Yes.
Four days after my contract, and I am telling
him
that
three suppliers have priced out the furniture
for
The Pump
Room, the chairs and the bar stools.
Okay, so now I'm formally involved in the job
and
already
within 5 days I have preliminary prices for
FF+E.
Q. Right,
you sign the contract on 6 July. 10 July you
are
already
writing to him and cc'ing to The Pump Room;
15:11 right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you
are already saying the prices of three suppliers
for
chairs, bar stools et cetera?
A. Yes.
Q. Has the
owners, The Pump Room, in writing approved or
signed a
contract with Mason Works as of 10 July 2006?
Have
they?
A. I don't
believe so.
Q. Yes.
A. How
could they, if he never issued quotations?
These
are
pre-quotation emails. In order for Mason Works
to
do a
quotation they have to know how much some of the
items
are costing.
Q. Right.
A. So of
course there has to be communication.
Q. The
communication was only to one, and one
contractor
only,
i.e. Mason Works.
A. No, I'm
sorry, it wasn't. There is an email --
Q. There is
one futile one.
A. There is
an email where -- Eugene, I don't know if you
can help
me.
Q. Never
mind. Nothing came out of it; right?
A. There is
an email that I sent to Clark, and I can't
remember
who else I cc'd it to, stating that I had sent
15:12 all the
drawings and all the FF+E drawings to date to
Mason
Works and SKL Interiors.
Q. And what
happened to the others?
A. He
couldn't complete a tender sufficiently on time
in
order to
make the deadline.
Q. Of
course.
A. Because
he was brought in the loop later.
Q. Mr
Poole, did you the first place have a tender
document
to call
for tender?
A. The
documents were always in progression as we went.
There
was no time --
Q.
Progression. Until today it's in progression.
Have you
done the
--
A. The
client wanted the project to open in October.
There
is no
time on earth that you could prepare the whole
set
as a
full package and then issue out for tender to
many
contractors. There simply wasn't enough time.
Q. Mr
Poole.
A. It had
to be done in pieces.
Q. Mr
Poole, you signed a contract saying you will do
it.
A. Yes, and
I did --
Q. And if
you can't do it because there's no time, then
the
only
proper thing is to inform the client, "I cannot
do
it in
this time". Did you do that?
A. They
were informed --
15:13 Q. Did you
do that?
A. They
were informed by Mason Works on July 6 that they
couldn't
meet the deadline. The day after my contract
was
signed. The clients' first indication by an
outside
person
advising them that it couldn't be built on time.
And then
subsequently RSP wrote back saying they
couldn't
do it on time --
Q. Never
mind about Mason Works. Did you, as the person
who
contracted on 1 July, did you even send one word
to
them
that the deadline is not possible?
A. How
could I say? There's other consultants
involved.
It
involved other things. My drawings are one
thing.
How
could I advise on the structural engineer when
there
wasn't
one hired; the architect wasn't hired; the floor
plan
wasn't approved? How could I possibly commit?
Q. Mr
Poole, until just now this morning you were
denying
that you
were told that October was the target date;
right?
A. I never
denied that.
Q. You
denied everywhere.
A. I did
not deny October was the target date.
Q. In your
documents you have denied it.
A. I said
it wasn't possible.
Q. In your
pleadings. Have you said in your affidavit or
in your
pleadings anywhere that the --
15:15 A. On some
day --
Q. -- that
the projected date given to you during your
discussions was October 2006?
A.
Somewhere along the line, that date came up. I
don't
remember
the date.
Q. Mr
Poole, you have not mentioned anywhere in your
affidavit -- I am sorry if I'm wrong --
Okay, fair enough. Mr Eugene, I will go on with
my
question.
May
I have just one minute, your Honour?
If
Eugene says that there was a mention, I'll take
it as it
is. I will go on with my next question.
Mr
Poole, you never sent out any tender. No
tenders
went out
in any event, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Just now
you said there were tenders to one other
person?
A. One
tender for the full contract of the construction
of
The Pump
Room for the dining room and toilets. But
individually, a good chunk of that was the
dining
chairs,
the bar stools and the tables, because it is an
enormous
amount of timber -- those went out to three
contractors, Epic Furniture in Malaysia, Kayu
Kaya in
Bali and
Heirloom in Jakarta.
Q. You're
talking about tenders --
15:16 A. For the
furniture, which is the big bulk of the cost
involved
on the interior works for the dining room.
Q. Okay.
A. Yes.
Q. You are
sourcing in Malaysia and Indonesia. Given
that --
A. Yes.
Q. -- okay,
that you did the job. I am not going to take
you
through that, but I am talking about the
contractor,
Mason
Works.
A. Yes.
Q. There
was no tender sent out; right?
A. Yes,
there was, of what was available at the time,
the
package
of drawings and all the FF+E specs.
Q. Look at
page 320 of volume 2 of the agreed bundle of
documents. Page 320, please. Have you got
that?
A. Yes.
Q. The
first line, that's your email?
A. Yes.
Q. First
line, "Pump Room never went out to tender."
That's your email confirming that?
A. No --
well, I said it never went out to tender because
the
second tender from SKL was never issued to him.
It
did go
out to tender but it was never received as
something presentable to even give to the
client, so
15:18 I have
to say to him that it didn't go out to tender.
I'm
sorry.
Q. Insofar
as my previous question, I retract that, because
you did
mention in paragraph 47 that you recall Bill
telling
you that he was looking to open for business
sometime
in October 2006. Apologies.
A. Mm-hmm.
Q. Okay,
coming back to this -- how, Mr Poole, are you
looking
at something or can I ask you a question?
A. Yes, I
was trying to find the reference to the email
where I
notified them that I had sent out all the
drawings
to SKL Interiors. I still can't find it.
Q. Okay,
let's assume it is there.
Can
I just ask you the next question? You sent an
email to
them; right?
A. Mm-hmm.
Q. No
tender document; right?
A. No --
you are talking about to The Pump Room?
Q. Is the
document that you are looking for in page 110 of
your
affidavit?
A. 110.
Yes, yes, that's the one. It says both -- okay,
the
first line doesn't mean anything.
"William and Fabian have been issued all current
drawings. Now we are awaiting prices. About 90
per
cent of
the FF+E sheets are completed and have also been
15:20 sent out
for prices. William is from Mason Works.
Fabian
is from SKL Interior.
Q. Now, all
you have given to these two were drawings;
right?
A. Correct.
Q. I know
you have done the drawings; I'm not disputing
that.
Tender documents, contractual terms with annexed
drawings
listed as extra, as I showed you, what you were
supposed
to do under the contract; that was not done,
right?
A. The
drawings are the contract documents.
Q.
Obviously, if you send drawings to someone they
may not
be able
to quote, isn't it? Just drawings alone?
A. Of
course not, because you need to interview the
contractors to help them understand what's
required.
Q. You see,
Mason Works can do it because they are in close
rapport
with you.
A. They
were also aware of the site. If a contractor
looked
at the floor plan -- say, for instance, I sent
out to
Fabian and he has never been inside a restricted
zone
within Clarke Quay, behind the hoarding, and
then
getting
the key to get into the actual Pump Room site.
When
you look at the floor plan, you would not know
that
part of the ceiling is only two and a half
metres
high.
Some of it is 3, and there is an area that's
12.8
15:21 metres
high.
The
contractor must know that data in order to do a
proper
quotation. He must view the site.
Q. And did
you give those data and information to them?
A. I gave
-- Fabian was invited over and I showed him
around
before he was able to give his numbers.
Q. You say
so, but anyway, I put it to you, you never
complied
with your contractual terms in doing a proper
tender
and inviting people for tender at a level
playing
field.
A. You say
I didn't. I say I did.
Q. You
did. Between these two people, obviously only
Mason
Works can take on the job under these
circumstances; am I right? You see, you were
close and
in fact
in collusion with Mason Works. If it's no, just
say no.
A. No.
Q. Now,
let's come to this, much aggrieved by my client
--
the
quotation?
A. Can you
give me the definition of what collusion is?
Q. Sorry?
A. Can you
give me the definition of collusion?
Q. It will
become clear in my next few questions.
MR ONG: May
it please your Honour, I must point out that in
the
statement of claim there has been no pleading of
15:23
collusion, conspiracy and so on.
Q. No
"conspiracy", correct. "Collusion" has been
used in
my
further and better particulars, furnished to the
1sth
defendant's solicitors.
COURT: Do
you accept that as a pleading?
MR VIJAY: I
have mentioned that, collusion.
MR ONG: It
cannot be, your Honour, I'm sorry.
MR
SREENIVASAN: May it please your Honour, on this
issue,
with the
indulgence of Mr Tan, this matter had --
MR VIJAY:
No, your Honour, I cannot be confronted with
three
solicitors on two matters, and either one of
them
decide.
If Eugene is doing it, I think Eugene does it.
If
you have anything, if you are assisting him --
it's
very difficult for me, your Honour, three of
them.
COURT:
(unclear -- simultaneous speakers) evidence of
collusion --
MR VIJAY: I
said that it was pleaded.
COURT: --
from your witnesses. If not, do you want to
open
up a new
front, really?
MR VIJAY:
By "collusion" -- he wants a definition. I said
you are
working --
A. I am
sorry, but I don't know what it means.
MR TAN:
Your Honour --
MR VIJAY:
Your Honour, could I just save time by
retracting
the
question, and if need be I will put it later.
15:24 Now,
can I refer you to page 36, please?
A. Of ...?
Q. Sorry,
this is Lee Ka Ming's affidavit. That's the
2nd
defendant. Lee Ka Ming's affidavit. It's page
36.
Sorry, your Honour, because I'm looking at the
original. I think I have the wrong bundle.
It's some
kind of
--
MR ONG: If
you look at page 170 in the 2nd defendant's
bundle
of affidavits --
A. Okay, is
it a text page?
MR VIJAY:
I'm sorry, your Honour, because this was
renumbered by my learned friend --
MR ONG: I
was referring to the text. I think you are
referring to the exhibit, that's why.
MR VIJAY:
Yes, 187. Have you got the page?
A. Yes.
Q. 13 of
the quotation.
A. Page 13
of the quotation?
Q. Yes,
look at the bottom.
A. That's
all way down at -- that's page 200.
Q. Page
200, please.
So
this is the quotation that you were asked to
help
out;
right?
A. Yeah, to
look at.
Q. And you
went through it with whom, William or Wan?
15:27 A. I
believe it was with William.
Q. And at
the end of the day, you came up with this figure
of 400
over thousand?
A. No.
Excuse me, I didn't come up with that figure.
Mason
Works did.
Q. Can I
refer you to page --
MR VIJAY:
Your Honour, may I trouble -- your Honour, may
I have
five minute just to -- because this was the
document
-- just to correct the numbers? Otherwise,
I will
be disturbing your Honour. I apologise, because
I'm
following the original.
COURT:
Let's give our court reporters a five-minute
break,
then.
(3.29 pm)
(Short break)
(3.58 pm)
MR VIJAY:
May it please your Honour, I was going to refer
the
witness to page 213.
COURT: You
said you will finish by this evening.
MR VIJAY: I
will, your Honour. During the short break
I have
edited.
COURT: We
could stay a little later, if needs be.
MR VIJAY:
If I may proceed, your Honour.
COURT: Yes.
MR VIJAY:
Page 213.
15:59 A. Yes.
Q. So at
the end of your review, you reduced the sum to
452,162.47 before GST; correct?
A. Mason
Works reduced their quote, yes.
Q. Were you
or were you not involved in the reduction?
A. I was
involved in the -- yes, I was, but in the aspect
of
either changing the design, re-specifying
materials
or
changing methods of construction in order to
reduce
the
overall cost. I had nothing to do with the
pricing
of the
items; that's what I'm saying.
Q. What did
you have to do? Just changing the --
A. Well,
can I use an example? We had a finish on the
front
face of the bar that was made of fibreglass, and
it was
deemed to expensive so we changed it to a black
concrete
tile, which reduced the cost by thousands of
dollars,
thousands, with minimal impact on the overall
design.
That's what my job was to do, reduce --
Q. So in
terms of money, there is a reduction of
118,000-odd dollars. 118,400. How much of it
was your
job?
How much of the reduction from the 118,400 was
your
work?
A. I don't
know if you could quantify that. I don't think
you
could quantify that.
Q. Do you
have anything to do with this figure of 570,562
16:01 being
reduced to 452,000?
A. Yes, of
course we had something to do with it, yes.
Q. So I'm
repeating, did you work together with Mason
Works
to
reduce this amount?
A. Yes, we
did.
Q. Yes, and
having worked together, you say the amount has
been
reduced to 452 before GST?
A. Yes.
Q. Right.
To quote Mason Works, reduce to a lower figure?
A. Correct.
Q. Right.
A. Yes, by
making design changes.
Q. Right.
Now, did you really reduce the figure?
A. I don't
know, because my goal was to look at the overall
costs
and make design changes for reduction. The
overall
numbers, Mason Works was then attributing the
cost to
those after discussion.
Q. Just
give me a clear, simple answer. Did you in
reality
and in
truth reduce the amount by 118,000?
A. I
believe so.
Q. You
believe so. Look at page 213 of the 2nd
defendant's
bundle
of affidavits. Have you got that?
A. The same
bundle?
Q. Yes, the
same page, in fact, 213?
A. Mm-hmm.
16:02 Q. Now,
there is a provisional sum of items at the
bottom,
marked
as 12.0?
A. 12.0,
yes, provisional sum.
Q. 12.1, it
says: "Provisional sum for labour and material
to
fabricate and clad selected column with fibrous
glass
cladding".
A. Right.
Q. And it
says, "6 pieces, 6,000 dollars"?
A. Yes.
Q. I'm just
reading, Mr Poole.
A. Mm-hmm.
Q. Now, can
I refer you back to page 190, item 3.10,
"Provisional sum for labour and material to
fabricate",
et
cetera, et cetera?
A. Yes.
Q. 6
pieces, 1,000, 6,000 dollars?
A. Yes.
Q. Correct?
A. You
confirm they are the same item?
Q. So what
you are effectively doing --
A. I need
to explain. That is my marking.
Q. No, let
me ask the question first.
You
are effectively just taking out from the 500
list and
putting it under the provisional sum. Now
explain.
16:04 A. Okay.
That is my notation on -- and that arrow saying
"up"
next to the number 6,000, that's indicating when
we
are
going through the numbers that the price is way
too
high,
that I have suspicions that we can do it lower.
When he
redid the quote, the provisional sum was left at
the same
amount, but in the end what was built is
Mason
Works never even built these columns; it was
taken
out of
his contract in the end and given to
SKL
Interior. That number was obliterated totally
from
the
contract because his price was too high.
And
when I mention SKL previously, one of their
numbers
in their uncompleted quote had a number much
lower
for the fibreglass columns. So I called up SKL
and
said, "Can you do the columns for us?" And then
later
they did.
Q. You are
going all over the place. My question is
simply
--
A. No, I am
not. I am explaining --
Q. That all
happened later.
A. -- the
provisional sum.
Q. Mr
Poole, all those later contractors, didn't do
the
job,
another contractor came in, all that was
subsequent
events.
I am talking about 8 September 2006 or
10
September 2006 when you sat down to reduce this
amount,
all you did was to take it out from the 500,000
16:05 and just
hide it under the provisional sum.
A. No, it
wasn't hidden. It was taken out and moved into
provisional sum because it was eventually going
to be
taken
out of their contract altogether.
I
don't know how Mason Works does their accounting
and how
they are adding up the numbers and all that.
All I
know is, when I was approached to cut the cost,
I knew a
better way to reduce some of these numbers
down,
and in some cases without even changing the
design
concept
whatsoever. So I did what I had to do. And
I talked
to the client and I said, "Let's take this out
of Mason
Works' contract and give it to somebody else."
And then
they did it.
Q. Mr
Poole, on the day, 8 September 2006, you made no
deduction or reduction with this item; right?
On this
date?
A. On this
date? Of course not on this date.
Q. Right.
And the same will go for 12.2, "Provisional sum
for
supply and install approved carpet to private
area",
right?
A. Mmm.
Q. If I
take you back to page 191, item 4.10,
"Provisional
sum for
supply and install of approved carpet to private
area,
2,800?
A. Yes.
16:07 Q. So all
you are doing is taking from the 500,000 and
hiding
it under provisional sum items, and thereby
causing
a reduction?
A. No.
Q. Tell me,
what else were you doing?
A. I am not
here to analyse Mason Works's accounting
practices. That wasn't my job. My job was to
reduce
the cost
in the design aspect and get the best value.
We call
it in the industry -- the standard term is
called
"value engineering", when you can take a
project,
when you
have the overall picture, and figure out a way
to get
it to look just as good at less cost.
Q. Mr
Poole, please cut all your theory out. Tell me
what
you are
doing on that particular day.
A. I'm not
doing this. It's Mason Works.
Q. It's not
you doing it?
A. No, it's
Mason Works.
Q. So now
it's -- you abandoned yourself in this?
A. No, I
did what I had to do, and then he did what he
had
to do.
Q. Don't
you think it is --
A. I am not
going to question Mason Works' work.
Q. Don't
you think, by doing that, you know, by doing
that,
you are
giving a wrong impression to the customer, to
your
client, so your client thinks it was reduced
from
16:08 470 to
440; right? Isn't that the impression the
client
will
get?
A. I'm
telling you, later on some of those items were
taken
out.
When you are talking about 4.10, I never
installed --
Q. Later
on, a lot of things happened, Mr Poole. I can
take you
through that but it's not going to get us
anywhere. We are talking about your reduction
exercise
on the
8th or 10th or 12th September 2006.
A. Do we
have until midnight to go over every single item
and
figure out where the reductions were? Do you
want
to go
through item by item?
Q. On the
12th --
A. The LED
lights, the number of LED lights, where they are
placed
on every floor, every length of LED light in the
bar
counter; do you want to go through all that?
Q. Mr
Poole, in any construction, as the days go by
there
will be
changes. That doesn't prove you any way. I am
asking
you questions about what happened on that day
when you
claimed you reduced by a hundred over thousand.
You
were deceiving the customer, full-stop. Now you
are
saying it's Mason Works and not you. That's all
your
answer is, isn't it?
A. I'm not
saying Mason Works deceived the customer.
Q. Then did
you deceive?
16:09 A. No, of
course not.
Q. Then why
are you doing all this, putting it under
provisional?
A. It's
under a letterhead under Mason Works' work.
It's
not my
company. But I am saying, as far as I know,
Mason
Works did not deceive the customer, and neither
did I.
Q. Mr
Poole, you were in close contact with Mason
Works
throughout, isn't it, from 2006, May/June
onwards? Was
there a
gap when you and they never met and didn't have
contact?
COURT: What
does that prove?
MR VIJAY:
I'm going to another point, your Honour.
COURT:
Well, get to the other point.
MR VIJAY: I
have finished with that point, your Honour, I'm
sorry, I
didn't make it clear. I'm trying to keep to my
promise
of timing, your Honour.
Did
you meet up with Mason Works, since, let's say,
May/June?
A. There
were many meetings; dozens of meetings.
Q. Of
course, and you have many projects in common;
right?
A. A few.
Q. When The
Pump Room works were going on, were you not in
close
contact with them? You had to be, right?
A. Of
course, because --
16:10 Q. Yes, and
are you telling me, throughout this close
contact,
they never even whispered to you about any of
the
variations in The Pump Room?
COURT: Any
of their what?
MR VIJAY:
Variations. All the subsequent variations to
the
quotations, your Honour.
There were so many variations, 1, 2, 3, then
another
series
of variations, 1, 2, 3, about --
A. No, why
would they? Why would they involve me in what
the
air-conditioning cost when it's not any part of
my
job,
except overlooking the plan at the very
beginning.
Q. Why
would they --
A. They
wouldn't want me to.
Q. But why
would they keep it away from you? Look at it
the
other way: any reason why they wouldn't tell you
about
what's going on? You were just conveniently
saying
you did not know, right, Mr Poole? But it is
not
realistic, is it?
A. Why
would I be interested --
COURT: Are
you asking a question or making comments?
MR VIJAY:
Yes, your Honour, I am putting it as a question.
Am I
right in my comment and observation?
Mr
Sreenivasan would like to answer for you.
COURT: One
person to speak at one time.
Yes.
16:11 A. Okay,
why would I be interested in the price of steel?
I am not
interested in the price of steel or how much it
would
cost to dig 32 metres down.
Q. Let us
move on.
A. I am
interested in furniture and tile.
COURT: We
will move on.
MR VIJAY:
You will take a personal interest in whether
Mason
Works were actually paid for their work; am I
right?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Because,
again, they are their own company. I have my
own
company. Why would I be interested?
Q. Have you
ever chased The Pump Room to say, "Hey, pay up
to Mr
Wan from Mason Works"?
A. No.
Q. Never?
A. No, I
don't think so, no. Why would I be involved in
--
COURT: What
is the purpose of this line of questioning
(unclear
-- simultaneous speakers).
MR VIJAY:
I'm just trying to show the -- I have come to
the
tail
end, your Honour. Can I just refer him to his
own
email
where he asks for money on behalf of Wan?
COURT:
Sure.
MR VIJAY:
To show the closeness, and how he would possibly
16:13 not know
about the quotations is unbelievable.
COURT:
Well, he knows about the variations; what is the
point
you are trying to make?
MR VIJAY:
If he knows about the variations, then I say
that
he has a
duty to look through them and verify --it is
his job.
COURT: It
doesn't follow, you know.
MR VIJAY:
Sorry, your Honour?
COURT: His
duty comes from his contract. Just because you
know, it
doesn't follow that you have a duty. That's
why --
what worries me about this line of questioning.
MR VIJAY:
Okay.
Mr
Poole, one area of concern. Mr Poole, you work
as a
project manager or designer, right, do you do
any
other
jobs, just for clarification?
A. As I
said, we have done to date about 500.
Q. All
similar projects?
A. No,
vastly different from one another.
Q. And you
are paid a fee for your work, right?
A. Correct.
Q. You
don't collect submissions, right?
A. No.
Q. Can I
refer to you page 34, volume 2, of the bundle of
emails?
A. Which
bundle?
16:14 Q. The pink
one, volume 2, page 334.
A. Yes.
Q. This is
a letter you wrote to Phil Robinson on 27 April
2007.
You say that because Bill is threatening to sue
you or
your company you have decided not to accept any
commissions under Singapore law. What are these
commissions you are referring to?
A. First,
can I -- can we explain the relationship of
what's
going on with who Phil is?
Q. It
doesn't matter. The important thing is what are
these
commissions.
A. Pardon?
Q. What are
these commissions?
A. I have
decided not to accept any commissions. That
means
(unclear -- simultaneous speakers).
COURT: One
person at a time. The poor court reporters
cannot
follow you all.
A. Sorry.
Now I understand what you are saying is the word
commission. It means, in this term, any
interior design
contracts. Commissions, contracts.
Q. Do you
get -- sorry, commissions are what from
contracts?
A. In this
instance, it's referring to any further
contracts.
Q. No, it
says "commissions".
16:16 MR TAN:
Your Honour, I have to object because I don't
see
where
this line is questioning is going.
MR VIJAY: I
have only one question.
MR TAN:
With great respect to my learned friend, none of
these
allegations are pleaded. If this is being
brought
in for
the purpose of the 3rd defendant, to show the
veil of
-- that has been dropped, and I hope Mr Vijay
has some
point that he is making in this line of
cross-examination questions.
MR VIJAY:
Only one, were any commission payments from
the Pump
Room --
COURT: What
is the relevance of that?
MR
SREENIVASAN: Your Honour, I would like to -- I
know my
learned
friend says "one at a time", but this is a point
of
English language. You commission an architect.
MR VIJAY:
(unclear -- simultaneous speakers) my question.
Please
object. (Unclear -- simultaneous speakers).
COURT:
Please --
MR VIJAY:
You see, your Honour, he is giving the answers
to
the
witness, with respect.
MR
SREENIVASAN: No, the witness has answered it,
saying
that
commission means a job. My learned friend has
ignored
that, and my learned friend knows that to
commission somebody to do a job is common
English usage.
I
think my learned friend has got to the point of
16:17 bullying
the witness and playing to the galley.
MR VIJAY:
No, no, I didn't do that.
MR
SREENIVASAN: I think you did.
MR VIJAY:
No, I think they did that to my clients. I was
very
polite.
MR ONG:
Your Honour, perhaps I would state the
2nd
defendant's objection to this line of
questioning
because
my learned friend is insinuating that my clients
are
paying commissions to the 3rd defendant.
MR VIJAY:
That's not true --
MR ONG: Not
only is that not pleaded, it is also perfectly
scandalous.
MR
SREENIVASAN: It should be withdrawn.
COURT: Mr
Vijay, is it true that you are trying to advance
that?
MR VIJAY: I
just want to ask him, because he's mentioned
commission. I leave it at that. If your Honour
thinks
I should
not ask, okay, I am quite happy to drop it.
COURT: No,
I don't want curtail the cross-examination but
it has
to be relevant.
MR VIJAY: I
mean, the witness is very -- he is
a
professional; he has an architecture degree. I
am
sure he
can say it's all not true. Why does he need the
three
lawyers to answer for him. A simple question.
Just say
not true.
16:18 MR
SREENIVASAN: Because you are not being straight
in your
question.
MR VIJAY:
Why is he so reluctant to just say no?
COURT: So
what is your question?
MR VIJAY:
My question, your Honour, is, earlier on he said
he
doesn't receive any commission, only fees. So
I wanted
to know what is this commission referring to.
And my
interest --
COURT: Stop
there. Do you want to answer?
A. Yes, in
some cases in the industry, like when -- say you
buy
furniture from like a very large manufacturer,
if an
architect or interior designer specifying for a
client,
sometimes the manufacturer actually gives a
discount
called a
commission to the designer, but we make it very
clear in
our contracts and with our clients that, when
we have
a negotiated fee and that becomes fixed in our
contract, that, if there are any commissions
offered to
the
designer for the purchase of anything, it always
goes
back to the clients.
COURT: All
right. Next question.
MR VIJAY:
Your Honour, the next question is equally
controversial.
Can
I refer you to page 256 of the same bundle.
Here,
first of all, you are writing to Fabian to say
that his
price is the same as Mason Works, but, however,
16:19 you will
give the contract to William, because William
is able
to offer 50 per cent of the 10,000 as contra
payment
by way of whisky.
Question, does this relates to The Pump Room?
A. Yes, it
does.
Q. Why are
you collecting fees by way of whisky?
A. No, what
I'm doing is I am trying to get the price down
lower
for the client, because, when Fabian issued his
price
for the fibreglass, the legs -- when I refer to
for the
legs, that means table legs in the restaurant,
but
there were many other fibreglass items --
Mason
Works was countering, saying that he would take
a
contra, to lower his fees, so basically what it
is I'm
bartering a bidding war to lower the price by
this
email,
it's saying Mason Works wants to get the job,
but
Fabian
also wants to get the job, so --
Q. And both
of them --
A. --
(simultaneous speakers - unclear) -- to get the
price
lower so
that the client saves more money. That's what
it's
about.
Q. I
thought your first line says the price is the
same.
A. For the
legs only, but there were many other portions
that
contract, of that portion of the work, so it's
just
the leg
portion, the legs.
Q. What you
say doesn't gel or doesn't tally with what's in
16:20 the
email, right? Here you're categorically saying
that
William
was given the contract because he was able to
offer 50
per cent of the 10,000 as contra payment by way
of
whisky.
A. So what
are you asking again? Can you repeat the
question?
Q. Maybe I
can ask you another question. When the prices
were the
same with Fabian and Mason Works, what was the
reason
for the preference to Mason Works? Was it the
--
A. There
was no --
Q. Was it
the whisky?
A. There
was no preference to Mason Works. It says down
here --
the last line:
"As
I mentioned last Saturday, your quote" -- that's
written
to Fabian, SKL -- "for the fibreglass columns
and legs
at The Pump Room has been accepted."
The
client accepted the quote because, when you look
at it in
total, the columns were less, the legs were the
same, so
the client took Fabian's quote because the
bottom
line is lower, but now I'm going back to Fabian
and
saying he's willing to reduce the legs even more
to
try to
beat his price, even though the client has
accepted.
So
what happened in the end -- what happened in the
end,
Fabian got the job, he did the job and then, you
16:22 know,
when introducing with Bill, Fabian -- even
though
he had a
contract to pay -- The Pump Room was contracted
to pay
Fabian a certain amount of money, he then even
further
reduced his price at the end and gave a discount
to help
save them even more money after the job was
installed.
MR VIJAY:
Those are all what you say happened
subsequently --
MR
SREENIVASAN: Your Honour, I'm objecting for a
simple
ground.
Is it my learned friend's instructions that
Fabian
didn't get the job? Because he is suggesting
that
this witness gave the job to Mason Works for
some
kind of
pay off. Now my learned friend knows or his
clients
know --
COURT: It's
the not pleaded.
MR
SREENIVASAN: Not only that, your Honour,
because this is
the
point I'm making about playing to the gallery,
my
learned
friend knows, because his clients paid Fabian,
that the
job did not go to Mason Works, and when
a
solicitor knows that the job didn't go, you
don't make
that
kind of suggestion just because gentlemen of the
press
are present.
MR VIJAY: I
didn't make any -- (unclear -- simultaneous
speakers) -- I asked him to explain his own
email and
Mr
Sreenivasan is trying very hard to provide the
16:23 answers
for him, and if you --
MR
SREENIVASAN: No --
MR VIJAY:
-- (simultaneous speakers - unclear) -- that
work
went to Fabian --
COURT: One
at a time.
MR
SREENIVASAN: Sorry, your Honour.
If
my learned friend is making that kind of
allegation without instructions or contrary to
his
instructions, then that issue will have to be
resolved,
and, if
need be, we will recall The Pump Room's
directors, ask them point blank that whether the
legs
and the
fibreglass columns were or were not given to
SKL
Interior, because we know for a fact that it was
not
and that
suggestion should not be made.
COURT: Let
us not lose sight of what the plaintiff's claim
is, all
right. Are you suggesting he didn't do his work
properly
or what?
MR VIJAY:
Yes. Our case is that he was a project manager,
and he
did not do his work as required under the
contract
and/or negligently or misleading the client as
I showed
in the 500,000, and not -- et cetera.
That's all. I asked him to explain. I never
insinuated anything. If he admits that his
commission -- even the earlier question, it is
he who
explained that's from products and all that. I
just
16:24 asked
him an open-ended question. There was no --
MR ONG: May
it please your Honour, related to the pleading
point
that it was not pleaded, if I may point out to
your
Honour, this document which my learned friend
relies
for his incisive cross-examination was in fact
from his
agreed bundle that he has provided a long time
ago, if
he wanted to make this allegation that the
3rd
defendant is receiving some sort of payoff from
my
client
he really had more than ample opportunity to
plead so
and say so, so that we have a chance to examine
the
plaintiff's witness when we had the opportunity
--
COURT: --
(unclear -- simultaneous speakers) -- or secret
profits,
so let's leave it at that.
MR VIJAY:
Your Honour, if I may move on. I will (unclear)
your
Honour. I will just go through the question of
delay.
Mr
Poole, it is in the terms of contract that one
of
the
terms was what was discussed at meetings early
2006;
am I
right?
One
of the terms says -- one of the conditions --
one of
the terms was as discussed at meetings in early
2006?
A. Yes.
Q. That
incorporated?
A. Yes.
16:26 Q. In other
words, to make it simple, whatever discussions
you had
in May, June, were all incorporated by this
clause?
A. Correct.
Q. And you
have admitted that one of the conditions or one
of the
discussions was that target date to open October
2006 --
you said so?
A. Yes.
Q. Yes. So
would you therefore agree that, by this clause,
the
discussion to complete on the October 2006
becomes
part of
the contract?
A. No --
no, it cannot. It's impossible.
Q. Why?
A. Because
there are other consultants involved that -- I'm
not in
control of the mechanical engineer, the
mechanical permit, the structural engineer, the
architects' submissions, the architectural
submission,
the
building of the project -- there is no way my
company
ever can commit to a deadline.
Q. But if
-- I know you are denying the position you're
project
manager, otherwise we'll go back to the same
arguments.
I am
asking the question on the assumption of my
case
that, if you are the project manager, if you are
the
project manager then you would be responsible
for
16:27 the
timelines and delay, right?
A. If I was
--
Q. If --
A. For the
entire scope --
Q. -- our
case is correct, then you would be responsible?
A. Well,
again, even a project manager, you know, how can
he
control when RSP is submitting their drawing and
how
can he
control, you know, how long it takes somebody
within
the government BCA to chop a drawing and then
return
it back?
The
project manager can't commit to a date, a firm
date.
They can estimate within industry practice, but
nobody
can confirm an absolute date, that's an
impossibility.
Q. You see,
under the contract, you had power to appoint
consultants, structural engineers and charge it
to
The Pump
Room, right?
A. Correct,
it allows for that, yes.
Q. So, if
there were problems, you had these provisions to
solve
the problem?
A. I think
it's never been mentioned that when there is the
situation of The Pump Room hiring RSP, there was
no
choice,
they had to hire RSP, because it's part of their
lease
agreement.
With
the complex nature of Clarke Quay, you had
16:28 a
submitting architect doing the architectural
work and
also the
structural work and grossly -- not grossly,
that's
the wrong term -- radically changing the
structures of these buildings.
No
other submitting architect or engineer was
allowed
to do it. When you signed a lease agreement
with
Clarke Quay you had to hire RSP. There was no
choice.
Q. Did you
have any objection to the appointment of the
RSP, or
did you have anyone else that you wanted to --
A. Of
course not --
Q. That was
not an issue.
Timelines; with your 16 years of experience,
would
you
agree with me that restaurants, pubs, are always
in
a
desperate hurry to complete their renovation, as
compared
to domestic?
A. In the
Singapore market -- yes, they are --
Q. Because
every day they are losing not only rental but
salaries
of staff, all other overheads.
A. If I can
speak freely, it's because Singapore landlords
put
very, very tough restrictions on paying rents.
Q. And from
your experience would you agree with me that
normal
timeframe is about two to three months -- maybe
add one
month more for the brewery, or exclude the
brewery
-- in all fairness, you had only done one other
16:30 brewery.
A. It
depends on the landlord. For some buildings the
landlord
will give you a longer time period before you
have to
pay your rent, but Capital Land is very tough,
they
give a very short time period.
Q. Okay. I
put it to you that you were employed and
appointed by The Pump Room to be their project
manager
and, of
course, designer. I'm putting to you. You can
agree or
disagree. I am rounding up my case.
A. For my
scope of work -- yes, for my scope of work.
Q. And I'm
putting to you that you have been in breach of
these
contractual obligations?
A. No.
Q. I'm
putting to you that you have neglected your job
as
the
project manager?
A. No.
Q. I'm also
putting to you that you have misled the
customer?
A. No.
Q. You have
let down your customer who engaged you for your
professional standing, relying on your expertise
and
guidance?
A. No.
MR VIJAY: I
have no other questions.
COURT:
Thank you, yes. Do you have any re-examination?
16:32 Re-examination by MR TAN
A. Am I
allowed to clarify something at the moment?
MR TAN: I
will ask the questions and you can clarify.
Now,
Mr Poole, you were cross-examined at length by
my
learned friend here on correspondence copied to
Mason
Works in the months of June and July, prior to
the
contract
being signed between The Pump Room and
Mason
Works.
A. Mm-hmm.
Q. Can you
explain to the court why you were copying
Mason
Works in the correspondence, even though the
contract
had not been awarded yet?
A. Because
I was asked to by the client.
Q. My
learned friend also has gone on at length about
the
lack of
a tender and my question to you is this; did
William
Graham or any of the directors in The Pump Room
complain
about receiving only one quotation?
A. No, they
did not.
Q. Your
attention was also brought to the term
"negotiated
contract" and whether or not you had carried out
a
negotiated contract, your answer was "yes".
Can
you explain to the court what a negotiated
contract
is and how you carried it out in this instance?
A. The
negotiated contracts in my scope of works
involved
a
multitude of different suppliers, providing FF+E
16:34 products
to The Pump Room for furniture, the chairs, the
tables,
the bar, the wood, tile, granite, a lot of wood
planking, concrete tiles, and all these came
from
a
multitude of factories from many different
countries.
So I
helped them to organise and for them to
understand what they had to do in order to make
those
orders
happen.
A
lot of countries -- a lot of suppliers that are
based in
Indonesia refuse to even put the goods in
a
container until they have payment in full, so a
lot of
clients
feel very nervous about that, so I have to
explain
to them that's it's part of their contract that
they
won't do the work unless the payment is made, so
if
the
cheques didn't go, the goods wouldn't be there,
and
The Pump
Room wouldn't open.
So
that was the part of negotiating contracts on
their
behalf by the small subsuppliers for the FF+E.
Q. You were
also asked whether you forwarded any contract
documents to Mason Works, and your answer was
"yes".
Can you
explain what these contract documents were?
A. The
drawings.
Q. And you
also referred to about 100 pages of documents,
what are
these documents again?
You
referred during your cross-examination to
bundles
of documents, 100 pages?
16:35 A. They are
not in here (unclear -- coughing) in here.
I said
-- I think I said something of the -- referring
to
hundreds of emails back and forth.
Q. Can you
explain to the court what a provisional sum item
is, Mr
Poole?
A. Okay.
In a case like this, because it was very rushed,
the
structure -- sorry, not the structure, the
mechanical engineer, when he is designing the
aircon
system
for the dining room and the toilets, cannot do
his work
until the floor plan is frozen, otherwise he's
spinning
his wheels and having doing everything over
many
times.
So
the ball starts to roll once the floor plan is
approved
by the client, and is also approved by RSP so
that it
can go in for submission, and when that drawing
is
issued, it cannot be changed, there's nothing
you can
do about
it, it must stay the same otherwise you
compromise your submission process and can cause
delay.
So,
as soon as the floor plan was frozen, the
drawings
were given to Mason Works to quote and also to
SKL, but
the engineers now don't have any time to do the
mechanical work, so Mason Works can -- any
contractor
should
be able to give a basic -- "provisional sum"
means a
really rough estimate, about how much it might
cost for
that part of the job to be completed, but they
16:37 can't
commit to it until they get the engineering
drawings, so they put the number in so that the
client
understands that there has to be -- there's
going to be
more
money having to be paid out for these items.
So
that's what provisional sum is for; there are
unknowns
at the time which will later be cleared up. It
can also
mean some items that are not fully designed.
Q. Let's
take a look at page 213 of the 2nd defendant's
affidavit of evidence-in-chief.
A. Yes.
Q. It has a
thick blue spine, the 2nd defendant bundle's of
affidavits of evidence-in-chief. I ask you to
turn to
page
213. You will see at item 12.0 "Provisional sum
items"?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you
explain again what these provisional sum items
mean and
how they relate to the entire contract?
A. Okay.
Well, once the job was going further along --
I just
give an example of, say, what 12.1 means; in The
Pump
Room there were about four units joined
together,
and the
columns within the space are extremely erratic,
so when
we are going through the process, we realise
that we
cannot make any sense out of the order of the
structure of the building, the physical columns
that are
already
there, so we identified in the process that we
16:39 want to
turn this bad aspect into a positive for the
client.
So
we determined that the columns need to be
a
special design aspect that gives the job its
identity,
and at
the time we were going through this one idea of
cladding
the columns with fibreglass, but it wasn't
100 per
cent set what it was going to be, so it was
a
provisional sum.
Then
say in the case of, say, 12.4, there was
provision for a construction of a U-shaped
hostess
cashier counter. In my floor plan I thought the
owner
would need to have a cashier station near the
front
door, but it wasn't confirmed by the client yet,
so we
wanted to put it in so that we didn't have to go
back and
say, "We need some more money to do the cashier
station", so we had it on the floor plan, but it
wasn't
confirmed by the client yet.
Q. Okay.
Let's pause there.
Let's look at page 190 of the same bundle of
documents, item 3.10, which you were referred to
earlier.
A. Yes.
Q. This is
Mason Works' first quotation on 8 September
2006?
A. Correct.
16:41 Q. Do you
know why it's been included at 3.10 here?
A. Why it's
included?
Q. Do you
know why?
A. Well,
because we wanted to have the columns to be done
in
fibreglass cladding.
Q. And at
that point in time was the sum fixed for this
item?
A. Fixed?
No, it says "provisional sum", it was estimated,
because
at the time it was only a concept idea.
Q. I see.
So would I be correct to say that provisional
sum
items are just estimated figures?
A. Yes,
basically they are estimated. The ultimate goal
is
that the
client wants to know how much it's going to
cost, so
if you give him a number, if you give him a
number
to like, say, build this room, but you forget
all
the
furniture, they're not getting a clear picture.
You
have to
allow for the furniture even though you don't
know
what it's going to be, especially on a very
rushed
job like
this.
We
have to have provisional sums so that the client
knows
what the bottom line is going to be.
Q. Let's
talk about your contract. You were referred to
it.
Maybe it would be easier if I just refer to your
affidavit. It's at page 82 of your affidavit.
You
said that it was drafted with the assistance of
16:43 lawyers?
A. The
contract?
Q. The
contract, yes. What I wanted to know was, was
this
contract
drafted specifically for this project --
A. No, it
was not, it's a standard contract form.
Q. Were
there any changes in this contract from the
other
contracts, your other standard term contracts?
A. Well, we
have blanks that we fill in, like the project
name,
the client name, if there is a budget, who the
other
consultants might be in the area, the scope, the
start
and move in, and then in some cases -- well, in
the
majority of cases when we work overseas, of
course,
a lot of
these paragraphs have to be stricken out
because
they have nothing to do with Singapore law, or
there
are other specific requirements.
But
it generally is just a blanket contract to
explain
to the client what we're going to do and it also
explains
what they have to do.
Q. You were
also referred I believe to page 85 of the
agreed
bundle of documents -- you don't have to flip to
it.
I'll just tell you what it is. It's the general
notes.
Was
this document prepared specifically or were the
terms of
that prepared specifically for the project as
well?
16:44 A. No.
Again, it starts out as a very basic common
form,
and then
a couple of lines are filled in when we know --
like
some landlords don't allow trucks to enter
a
building or, you know, only working at night --
if you
are
building a project next to an open restaurant,
you
can't
work during lunch time or dinner, so those kinds
of
things have been plugged into those general
notes for
that
specific job, but 95 per cent -- 98 per cent is
common
generalities.
Q. And what
is the purpose of these general notes?
A. It's
basically to cover misbehaviour by the
contractor,
because,
you know, there have been cases of workmen
using a
construction site as a gambling den, things like
that.
It covers that. Don't use the site illegally.
MR TAN: I
have no further questions, your Honour.
May
the witness be released.
COURT: Of
course.
(The witness withdrew)
COURT: That
closes the 1st defendant's case?
MR TAN:
That closes the 1st defendant's case.
COURT: And
your case will be opened tomorrow.
I'll
see you all in chambers.
(4.46 pm)
(The hearing adjourned until 10.00 am on
Thursday, 6 November 2008)
|
